The main legal point established is the application of the preponderance of probabilities in assessing negligence in motor accident cases and the requirement to award just compensation without hyper-technicalities.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Mahesh amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Joaquim Godinho for the respondents no.1 and 2 (claimants).

2. This appeal questions the judgment and award dated 24.07.2014 made by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.188/2012, awarding the claimants compensation of Rs.12,81,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. on account of the death of their son 23-year-old son Ravish in a vehicular accident on 14.01.2012.

3. The record bears out that on 14.01.2012, Ravish was riding a Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing registration No.Ga-06-H-8418. an accident with a military tipper truck bearing registration No.07N00301 6K at about 13.45 hrs. resulted in Ravish's death. The record also bears out that the police prosecuted the truck driver for offenses under Section 304-a of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, Mr. amonkar was unable to report the status of such prosecution.

4. However, Mr. amonkar submits that the evidence on record establishes that it was Ravish who was negligent and therefore responsible for the accident. First, he points out that the truck in question was a part of a convoy of five trucks proceeding very slowly. Second, he points out that appropriate care was taken all along the road to ensure no inconvenience to the public, and further, there was sufficient warning about the convoy. Third, he submits that evidence on record bears out that Ravish drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently and was alone responsible for the accident. Finally, he submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record in the proper perspective.

5. Mr. Godinho defends the impugned award insofar as the finding of rashness and negligence of the truck driver is concerned. However, he submits that the compensation awarded is not just compensation because there is no reference to the correct multiplier. Even principles in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680 have not been followed. He relies on Surekha and Ors. v. Santosh and Ors. (2021) 201 PLR 795 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court should not take a hyper-technical approach and decline just compensation to the claimants merely because such claimants may have failed to file any cross-appeal or cross-objections. He submits that the Court must determine and award just compensation.

6. Mr. Godinho submits that there was unimpeachable evidence that Ravish was an automation Engineer working in Electro Controls, earning a salary of Rs.15,070/- per month. Moreover, there was no dispute about his age. Based on all this, in terms of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), compensation of Rs.25,59,232/- would represent just compensation.

7. In rejoinder, Mr. amonkar submits that there is no warrant for any enhancement in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections. He reiterates that in the absence of any negligence on the truck driver's part, the appellants should not even be foisted with any liability to pay compensation.

8. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

9. The first point for determination in this matter is whether the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal warrants interference.

10. It is well settled by several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including but not restricted to Sunita & Ors. V/s. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 486 anita Sharma & Ors. V/s. New India assurance Company Limited & anr. (2021) 1 SCC 171 Parmeshwari V/s. amir Chand & Ors (2011) 11 SCC 635 Mangla Ram V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 656 Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. V/s. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & anr. (2013) 10 SCC 646 that the approach of the Courts/Tribunals when dealing with such matters has to be sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events at the spot or the hardship that the claimants usually face in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident w