The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the deceased's income tax returns and the need for a fair and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT

R. D. Dhanuka, J. - By this First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant (original opponent no.2) has impugned the judgment and award dated 3rd December, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as 'M.A.C.T., Solapur' for short) in M.A.C.P. No. 258 of 2010 awarding compensation of Rs.8,96,550/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till actual realization of the entire amount against the respondent no.3, jointly and severally. By consent of the appellant and the respondent nos. 1 and 2, this First Appeal is heard finally at the admission stage. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this First Appeal are as under:-

2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Rukminibai Ramayya Kamtam. It was the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the said Mrs.Rukminibai had gone to Andhra Pradesh with her relatives. They were returning on 16th April, 2010 in Tavera Jeep bearing registration No.MH-13- AC-1013 and were travelling on Solapur-Hydrabad highway. When they came near Mayura Hotel in Humnabad at about 4:40 p.m., the said vehicle Tavera was stopped for nature's call by the passengers. When the said Mrs. Rukminibai was returning to Jeep, which was parked by the side of the road and was about to board the Jeep from back side, one Omni Car bearing registration No.AP-37-IH-2456 came from back side in high speed and was driving in zigzag manner and the driver of the offending vehicle lost his control over the said vehicle and gave dash to the said Tavera Jeep. The said Mrs. Rukminibai received severe injuries and was taken to Government Hospital, Humnabad but succumbed to the injuries.

3. It was the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the said accident had taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the said driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent no.3 herein is the owner of the said Tavera Jeep and it was insured with the appellant on the date of the accident. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a claim application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the M.A.C.T., Solapur bearing M.A.C.P. No. 258 of 2010 inter-alia praying for compensation in sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the appellant and the respondent no.3, jointly and severally with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application till actual realization of entire amount.

4. The respondent no.3 herein did not appear before the Tribunal and did not file any written statement. The matter proceeded against him ex-parte. The appellant filed its written statement and denied that the said accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tavera Jeep. The appellant also contended that there was a breach of the terms of policy committed by the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and thus appellant was not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

5. The Tribunal framed 5 issues for determination. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 examined son of the deceased who filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. There was no cross-objection of the said witness by the respondent no.3 herein. The appellant however cross-examined the said witness. The said witness admitted that he had not witnessed the accident and had no personal knowledge about the said accident. It was not the case of the appellant that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the said deceased. The witness examined by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 produced certified copies of FIR, Spot Panchanama, AA form, etc. Those documents were marked as exhibits and were read in evidence. The driver of the offending vehicle was not examined by the appellant as a witness. No other oral evidence was led by the appellant.

6. It was the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the said deceased was 65 years old at the time of her de