The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of just compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering the deceased's income and other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company (respondent no.3).

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the adjudication as regards issue nos. 4 and 5 by the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award dated 06.02.2016 and 13.05.2016 respectively in Claim Case No. 43 of 2013. The appellants who are parents of the deceased are seeking modification of the judgment and the award impugned in the appeal by way of enhancement of the compensation amount.

Brief facts of the Case

3. It is the case of the claimants that on 12.11.2012 the deceased Md. Bado was waiting for the bus at Rangra Chowk. A Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. BR-09G-4570 came in the meantime and crushed the deceased and another person who were standing there. Md. Bado was seriously injured, he was admitted in Patna Hospital and only after five days in course of treatment he died on 17.11.2012. The accident took place allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle by the driver. A criminal case giving rise to Gopalpur (Rangra) P.S. Case No. 364 of 2012 dated 12.11.2012 under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The claimants filed their claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1988’) before the learned Tribunal. They claimed that the deceased had a business of dealing in animals and he was earning Rs. 6,000/-per month from that business. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited (O.P. No. 3) and at the time of accident, the insurance policy was effective.

5. In the Tribunal the owner and driver of the offending vehicle appeared, they filed their joint written statement. They admitted that the vehicle was insured with O.P. No. 3 vide policy effective from 01.03.2012 to 28.02.2013 and was covered on the date of accident i.e. 12.11.2012. The owner claimed that he has not committed any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and at the time of accident the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence.

6. The claimant no.1 produced herself and also brought another witness Lukman Ali (C.W.2). In addition to the oral evidence, they also relied upon some documentary evidence which are Exhibit ‘1’ to Exhibit ‘7’. Exhibit ‘1’ is the certified copy of the F.I.R., Exhibit ‘2’ is the certified copy of the chargesheet, Exhibit ‘3’ is the photocopy of post-mortem report of the deceased, Exhibit ‘4’ is the photocopy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, Exhibit ‘5’ is the photocopy of registration certificate of the offending Bolero vehicle, Exhibit ‘6’ is the photocopy of driving licence of O.P. No. 2 and Exhibit ‘7’ is the original heirship certificate.

7. The Insurance Company (O.P. No. 3) appeared and filed a written statement. They contested the case showing that the proof of age and income has not been filed and that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Some other ornamental pleas were also taken on behalf of the Insurance Company.

8. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues which are being reproduced hereunder:-“Issues

1. Whether the claim application as framed and filed is maintainable.

2. Whether the claimants have any cause of action.

3. Whether claimants are entitled to get compensation.

4. What should be just compensation.

5. To what relief or reliefs.”

9. As against the aforesaid oral and documentary evidences of the claimants, no oral or documentary evidence was brought on record on behalf of the opposite parties.

10. In the aforementioned background, the learned Tribunal considered the evidences available on the record with reference to the issues framed. So far as issue no. 3