JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sanket Kamat and Mr. Yogesh Nadkarni for the appellant and Ms. Christabel Afonso for the respondents.

2. The appellant is admittedly the owner of the Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration no.GA-01-K-5980 involved in an accident on 20.12.2011, which resulted in the death of Laxman Surya Gaude. The scooter was driven by one Pranab Jana (Jana), who was impleaded as respondent no.1 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal). However, the said Jana has not been impleaded as a party in this appeal for the reasons best known to the appellant.

3. The deceased Laxman's widow, Smita, then aged 37 years, his two minor children, Sanat and Akash, then aged 6 and 4 years respectively, and his mother Savitri, then aged 60 years, instituted Claim Petition No.53/2012 before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the death of Laxman in the vehicular accident. The Tribunal has awarded the claimants compensation of Rs.37,37,500/-, including the amount of Rs.50,000/-towards No-Fault Liability together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim. Since the scooter was not insured, the appellant is held to be liable for payment of this awarded amount together with said Jana (driver). Hence this appeal by the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Mr. Kamat learned counsel for the appellant firstly submitted that the Tribunal erred in making an Order dated 04.11.2015, closing the evidence on behalf of the appellant. He points out that no sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant and the Tribunal even failed to appreciate that there is usually some delay in the service of summons upon the witness. He submits that on account of the Order dated 04.11.2015, the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to defend the claim petition effectively.

5. Mr. Kamat submitted that secondly and without prejudice to the above, the evidence on record sufficiently establishes that the offending vehicle was stolen by Jana. He pointed out that on 20.12.2011, even a complaint/FIR was lodged with the police, and the same was duly registered. He submits that in such circumstances, there was no question of holding the appellant liable for the acts of the said Jana.

6. Mr. Kamat, again without prejudice to the above, finally submits that there are errors apparent on the face of the record in the matter of computation of the quantum of compensation. He submits that a maximum of 40% addition could have been made to the proved income in terms of the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.- 2017 (16) SCC 680. He submits that the award of compensation towards loss of love and affection or funeral expenses is also over and above what has been prescribed in Pranay Sethi(supra). He submits, no doubt, without prejudice, that the compensation amount could have been determined at the maximum of Rs.30,75,000/-and not Rs.37,37,500/-as determined by the Tribunal.

7. Ms. Christabel Afonso, learned counsel for the respondents, defends the impugned award based on its reasoning. She submits that more than ample opportunity was granted to the appellant. She submits that a patently false case was set out by the appellant about theft, and in any case, the same was not made good either by leading any evidence or through cross-examination. She made particular reference to the testimony of Joaquim Fernandes (AW2), the Head Constable attached to the Ponda Police Station, and Firoz Khan (AW3), who deposed not only as an eyewitness to the accident but also that he had seen Jana riding the offending vehicle at least 100 times before the accident in question in the Kundaim Industrial Estate complex where the industry of the appellant is presently based. She submitted that there is no error in the computation of compensation considering the law as it stood on the date on which the impugned award was made. She also pointed out that there were no grounds in the appeal memo questioning the quantum of