The court emphasized that the Claims Tribunal is obligated to determine both the quantum of compensation and the issue of negligence in motor accident compensation cases.

G. P. Mittal, J.

1. The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 06.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 15,77,000/- was awarded for the death of Rakesh who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25.06.2010.

2. A perusal of the Trial Court record reveals that a DAR(Detailed Accident Report) was filed by the Appellant Insurance Company whereby the Appellant made a legal offer of a sum of Rs. 8,75,000/- as full and final settlement. The offer was not considered to be reasonable and, therefore, was rejected by the Respondents(Claimants). The Claims Tribunal proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation on merits. At the same time, the Claims Tribunal held that since the Appellant Insurance Company had given an offer of Rs. 8,75,000/-, the Claimants were not required to prove negligence. Thus, no issue was framed on negligence and on the basis of evidence led by the Claimants to prove the deceased’s income and other relevant factors, compensation as stated earlier was awarded.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that when the legal offer given by the Appellant Insurance Company was not accepted by the Claimants, the only option available to the Claims Tribunal was to treat the DAR as a Claim Petition and to decide not only the quantum of compensation but the issue of negligence as well.

4. The case was listed today for disposal of the Application (CM. APPL.19236/2012) for release of amount in favour of the Respondents. Since the liability to pay the compensation in the manner as adopted by the Claims Tribunal was disputed, the parties agreed for disposal of the Appeal finally.

5. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that a DAR was filed on 23.07.2010 and a legal offer of a sum of Rs. 8,75,000/- was made by the Appellant Insurance Company. Since the legal offer was rejected by the Respondents No.1 to 5(Claimants), in my view, the only option available to the Claims Tribunal was to treat the DAR as a Claim Petition and to proceed with it in accordance with law.

6. In Rajesh Tyagi & Ors v. Jaibir Singh, (FAO No.842/2003) decided on 21.12.2009 by J.R. Midha, J., the Delhi Police and Insurance Company agreed to follow the Claims Tribunal’s Agreed Procedure initially for a period of six months. The same was subsequently extended. I would like to refer to Rule 6 of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure with regard to the manner of acceptance and rejection of the legal offer by the Claimants, which is extracted hereunder:-

“6. Procedure on receipt of the detailed accident report:

(1) The Claims Tribunals shall examine whether the Detailed Accident Report is complete in all respects and shall pass appropriate order in this regard. If the Detailed Accident Report is not complete in any particular respect, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the Investigating Officer to complete the same and shall fix a date for the said completion.

(2) The Claims Tribunals shall treat the Detailed Accident Report filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, where the Police is unable to produce the claimants on the first date of hearing, the Claims Tribunal shall initially register the Detailed Accident Report as a miscellaneous application which shall be registered as a main claim petition after the appearance of the claimants.

(3) The Claims Tribunal shall grant 30 days time to the Insurance Company to examine the Detailed Accident Report and to take a decision as to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants in accordance with law. The decision shall be taken by the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company in writing and it shall be a reasoned decision. The Designated Officer of the Insurance Company shall place the written reasoned decision before the Claims Tribunal within 30 days of the date of complete Detailed Accident Report.

(4) The compensation assessed by the D