The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable and consistent testimony to establish liability and the discussion of legal provisions and interpretations to determine the adequacy of compensation.

G.P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant impugns the judgment dated 11.07.2012 whereby a compensation of Rs.10,94,550/- was awarded to Respondents no. 1 to 3 for the death of Ajit Kumar Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 31.12.2007.

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant (owner and driver of the offending vehicle) that the accident was not caused by Maruti Car No. DL 8C 1139. The Appellants were hence, not liable for any compensation.

3. It is urged that the Claims Tribunal erred in believing the testimony of PW-3 Constable Bharat Lal and discarding the testimony of the Appellants both of whom entered in the witness box. In the alternative, it is contended that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant as addition of 30% towards future prospects could not have been made in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65, and as held by this Court in MAC APP No. 189/2014 titled HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. LTD. v. Smt. Lalta Devi and Ors. decided on 12.01.2015.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3 supports the impugned judgment. He urges that the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads is on the lower side.

5. The issue of involvement of the vehicle and negligence of its driver was dealt with by the Claims Tribunal in paras 9 to 12, which are extracted hereunder:-

9. The testimony of PW-3 Constable Bharat Lal is relevant on this issue. PW-3 stated that on the day of accident i.e. 31.12.2007, he was on duty at Chimney T-point, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi and at about 23.40 hrs. an accident took place between a scooter bearing no. DL- 7SB-8126 and a Maruti Car no. DL-8C-1139 and in the said accident the driver of the scooter was seriously injured and later on he succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. PW-3 stated that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car and there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the Scooter Driver. PW-3 sated that he immediately informed to the duty officer and his statement was recorded and an FIR was lodged on his statement u/s 279/337 IPC. PW-3 stated that injured was shifted to hospital by Constable Suresh who was also present at the place of accident. During cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he was at Chimney T-point, Surajmal Vihar from 2.00 p.m. till 11.30 p.m., on 31.12.2007. PW-3 stated that he did not know the name of the company of the vehicle plying on road nor could he tell the shape and size of the vehicle. PW-3 stated that his face was towards Ram Vihar side. PW-3 stated that he saw the offending vehicle for the first time when it was 50 mtrs. from him and the accident took place about 4-5 steps away from him. PW-3 stated that the offending vehicle did not stop after the accident and the speed of the offending vehicle was about 80-90 km/hr. PW-3 also stated that he had mentioned in the FIR that vehicle like Indica car hit the deceased and he had read the number of the vehicle.

10. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1 and deposed that no accident took place with the vehicle of the respondent and the respondent had been falsely implicated in the above noted case by the petitioner, in collusion with the police officials. It is also stated that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent and that since purchase of the alleged vehicle the same was never brought to Delhi and same was lying in the native village of the respondent. It is also stated that accident took place with some other vehicle and constable Bharat Lal did not witness the accident. During cross-examination, R1W1 stated that he was facing trial in criminal case. R1W1 further stated that he had no enmity with the police official or with the petitioner who were not known to him.

11. Respondent no. 2, Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, R2W2 stated that he was registered owner of Maruti Car No. DL-8C-1139. Th