IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the need for just and proper compensation to victims in motor accident cases, considering factors including possibilities and the object of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, District: Kondagaon, (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 41/2013 wherein, the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition in toto preferred by the appellants/claimants.

2. As per claim petition, on 28.12.2012, when the deceased Mahanguram was returning to his home, at that time, the tractor bearing registration No. CG 17 ZG 0248 (for short the ‘offending vehicle’) which was being driven by respondent No. 1, rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of his treatment. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and duly insured with respondent No. 3.

3. On account of death of Mahanguram arising out of injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,85,000/- on various heads. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove their case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition without appreciating the evidence available on record. He further submits that Tribunal although held the respondent No. 1 liable for cause of accident, but did not consider the death of deceased occurred after 15 days arising out of vehicular accident, which is per se illegal and the P.M. report i.e. Ex.P/6 also indicate that cause and nature of death is ‘accidental’. He also submits that when the respondent No. 1 was held to be liable for cause of accident then the Tribunal ought to have considered the death of deceased occurred arising out of the same accident and then awarded reasonable compensation, however, the Tribunal did not grant even single penny to the claimants, therefore, the impugned award as passed by the learned Claims Tribunal may be set aside and reasonable compensation may be granted to the claimants after considering the evidence available on record. In support, reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621.

5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company while admitting the fact that no appeal has been filed by the respondent No. 3/Insurance company, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which needs no interference by this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Before the Claims Tribunal, appellant No. 1-wife of the deceased has been examined as AW-1 whereas respondent No. 1 and 2 did not lead any evidence and respondent No. 3 has examined A.B. Mate [NAW-3 (1)] and Ramkaran Ratre as [NAW-3 (2)].

8. Appellant No. 1, wife of deceased Mahanguram, has stated in evidence that while the deceased was returning to his home after completing his labour work between the villages Sonabal and Polang, the offending vehicle being driven by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased thereby causing accident as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries over his left shoulder and knee of left leg. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted in R.N.T. Hospital, Kondagaon and thereafter was referred to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where after treatment he was sent to his home and while treatment ultimately her husband died on 12.01.2013 i.e. after 16 days of the accident. It is also stated by her that deceased used to earn Rs. 4,500/- by doing labour work. In her cross-examination by insurance company she remained firm, howe