The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows for the award of compensation without requiring proof of fault, neglect, or default, provided that the accident, ownership and insurance of the vehicles, the age and income of the deceased, and the claimants' status as legal representatives are established.

Admit. Heard finally with consent of Smt. Naik, learned Counsel for appellant, and Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 5.

2. This appeal challenges judgment and award dated 30/4/2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. NO.482/2010 by which amount of Rs.8,15,000/- is awarded as compensation to respondents/original claimants with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, i.e. 30/11/2010 till realization of amount.

3. The petition presented before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) alleging that deceased Ranu alias Rajesh Madhukar Ghule was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum as he was self employed in sale of milk and was aged about 26 years at the time of accident, which occurred on 17/6/2010 at about 3 p.m. at Biyani Chowk, Amravati.

4. It is the case of claimants that on the day of accident, deceased Ranu was riding motor cycle bearing Registration No.MH-27/T-971 with one Pramod Shantaram Ghati as pillion rider and was proceeding towards University when one tipper bearing Registration No. MHG-6349 was stationary though not on the extreme left side of the road, but on the road itself without proper precaution and while deceased Ranu was in the process of over taking tipper, one vehicle came from opposite direction and to avoid collusion with the said vehicle, gave dash to the stationary tipper causing accident wherein Ranu sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to same.

5. On the basis of report, offence was registered against deceased Ranu. Respondent no.3 is owner of the tipper, which was insured with appellant. The claim petition was filed by widow of deceased Ranu for herself, her minor daughter and parents of deceased were made as original respondent nos.3 and 4. The claim petition was accordingly filed for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization of amount. During pendency of present appeal, original respondent no.3 Madhukar died on 15/3/2016 as mentioned in Civil Application No.2955/2017 filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 seeking permission to withdraw the amount.

6. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,15,000/- inclusive of no fault liability along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, i.e. 30/11/2010 till realization of amount, which award has been challenged by appellant Insurance Company.

7. It is the case of respondent no.3, owner of tipper, as revealed from his written statement (Exh. 20) that the accident took place due to sole negligence of deceased Ranu as he himself gave dash to stationary tipper, which was parked at the correct side of the road. Similar is the case of appellant insurer as revealed from its written statement (Exh. 17) that accident occurred due to negligent driving of deceased Ranu himself. It is, therefore, the case of appellant and respondent no.3 that claimants are not entitled for any compensation as no negligence can be attributed to the driver of tipper involved in this accident.

8. Smt. Naik, learned Counsel for appellant, has contended that according to contents of spot panchanama (Exh. 31) and first information report (Exh. 30), negligence on the part of deceased Ranu alone can be said to be established and that both these documents came to be exhibited in the evidence of claimant wife. It is thus submitted that no liability can be fastened upon the appellant/insurer of tipper.

9. In the background of facts as above, it is material to note from the written statement (Exh. 17) of the appellant that fact of tipper bearing Registration No. MHG-6349 having been insured with appellant is not disputed, as according to its written statement, same was insured vide Insurance Policy No.182300/31/2010/21125 for the period from 26/3/2010 to 25/3/2011, a