The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence, contributory negligence, and compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Satish Babu Gupta, then aged 57 years, working as Superintendent Engineer with New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) was driving two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DL 7SF 1805 (scooter) at about 10.30 a.m. on 17.07.2005 when he came to be involved in a motor vehicular accident resulting in injuries that eventually caused his death. It is stated that the accident involved two other vehicles, they being Maruti Zen car bearing registration no. DL 2CK 7967 (the car), and a three wheeler scooter bearing registration no. DL 1RJ 1698 (TSR). It is statethat the deceased was a widower and his legal heirs, five married daughters, they being first to fifth respondents herein (collectively, the claimants), joined together to institute accident claim case (suit no. 35/13/2006) seeking compensation. In the said proceedings taken out under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner cum driver of the car, and its insurer, were impleaded as first and second respondents. The insurer of the car is now the appellant before this Court while owner cum driver of the car is the sixth respondent. The claimants also impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the TSR, they being respondents no.3 to 6 before the tribunal (now seventh to tenth respondents in the appeal).

2. In the claim petition, both set of respondents i.e. owner-cum-driver and insurer of the car and the owner, driver and insurer of the TSR put in contest, their plea being that there was no involvement on their side and that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased scooterist. It is pointed out that the deceased was also moving on the scooter without wearing helmet. Pertinently, it needs to be noted that the car driver (sixth respondent) pleaded that he was only an eye witness to the occurrence, the collision having taken place between the TSR and the scooter and that he had been falsely implicated. Reference in this regard was made to the report of investigation carried out by the police in the wake of registration of first information report (FIR) No. 162/2005 of police station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi.

3. The tribunal accepted the evidence led by the claimants, particularly the account given by Dinesh Singh Patwal (PW-3) who was presented as an eye witness and returned finding that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the car driver and, therefore, awarded compensation, fastening the liability on the appellant insurance company.

4. By the appeal at hand, the insurer of the car questions the above-noted finding, its contention being that PW-3 could not have been believed in that, in the police investigation, it had been concluded that there was no involvement of the car. It is also pointed out that in the report of investigation into the FIR, the police had filed an untraced report. The insurance company, at the same time, argues that the evidence shows that the deceased himself was guilty of negligence in that he was moving on two wheeler scooter without taking the precaution of wearing a helmet. The insurance company also submits that the married daughters (the claimants) could not have been treated as dependents and, therefore, the tribunal was right in declining any award under the head of loss of dependency. It is argued that the award under the head of loss of estate it having been calculated on the lines of calculation of the loss of dependency was an erroneous approach.

5. Per contra, the claimants argued that the negligence on the part of the car driver was duly proved and that the award under the head of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are inadequate and the rate of interest levied is also deficient.

6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone through the record, this Court finds no reasons to disturb the finding of the tribunal as to the negligence on the part of the car driver. Mere fact that the police investigation had initially resulted in an “untraced” repor