This appeal is directed by M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, against the judgment and award, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Majalgaon, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 7 of 2014, whereas compensation of Rs.40,17,602/-is awarded by the Tribunal and liability is saddled on original respondent no.2 owner of the offending Truck No. MH-20/AT-2468 and original respondent no.3 insurance company (present appellant).

2. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 in the appeal are original claimants. Respondent no. 6 is the driver and respondent no.7 is the owner of the offending vehicle.

3. Deceased Rajendra Nakhate, who was the Assistant to Engineer in B. and C. office, Latur Sub-Division, Renapur, on 23.2.2014, was returning to Renapur from Lakhmapur site by his motor cycle along with his colleague Sadashiv. Near Lakhmapur pati on Ambajogai-Latur road, the offending truck came from their backside and gave dash to the motor cycle of the deceased, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. In that accident, deceased Rajendra sustained injuries and though he was rushed to Civil Hospital, Latur, he was declared as dead. The pillion rider Sadashiv also sustained comparatively minor injuries. Due to accidental death of deceased Rajendra, his dependents filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the award passed in that claim petition is the subject matter of the present appeal.

4. Heard Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 (claimants). Shri V.M. Lomte, learned counsel, though represented respondent nos. 6 and 7, did not take part at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment and award, passed by the Tribunal, only on the ground of involvement of offending truck in above said motor vehicle accident and quantum of compensation as well as contributory negligence of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though accident occurred on 23.2.2014, the first information report to police station was lodged on 27.2.2014 without offering any explanation for the delay. He submits that even in the spot panchanama (Exh.29) prepared on 26.2.2014, registration number of the offending truck is not mentioned. He submits that the alleged eye witness Sadashiv (PW 2) is not trustworthy, as his injury certificate is not placed on record to prove his presence on the spot along with the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that by filing written statement (Exh.18) the owner of the offending truck disputed the involvement of the truck in the above said accident.

Next limb of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that though in the family of deceased dependents are five in number, the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/5th amount out of annual income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. He submits that even under conventional head, exorbitant compensation is awarded by the Tribunal, which needs to be reduced. He submits that there are arithmetical error in the calculations done by the Tribunal. He placed reliance on “Anil and others vs New India Assurance Company Limited [(2018 2 SCC 482]”, “Farzana Begum w/o Abdul Khadir vs Sk. Saleem Sk. Hyder and ors.” [2018 SCC Online Bombay 2705], “National Insurance Company Limited Vs Nandabai wd/o Prakash @ Pralhad Dhumal and ors.” [2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 91], and the judgment, passed by this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tufel Habib Bagvan and another on 7.6.2016 in Writ Petition No. 2840 of 2013.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of appeal on the ground that the insurance company did not obtain permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Ac