Point of Law: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with object of providing relief to victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims.

JUDGMENT :

[Gaurang Kanth, J.]

1. The subject-matter of challenge in the present case is the award dated 16.04.2013 (“impugned award”) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in suit no. 61/2012 titled as Smt. Farzana Rahat v. Mr. Aas Mohammad. Vide the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,31,583/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Three only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum including interim award if any, from the date of filing the petition i.e. 19.11.2012 till the notice under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC was given by the respondents. Respondent no. 3 i.e. the insurance company, was directed to deposit the award amount within a period of thirty days. The Insurance Company was also directed to pay further interest @ 12% per annum in case of non-payment of the said amount within thirty days.

2. Against the impugned award, MAC.APP. 555/2013 has been preferred by the Appellant/New India Assurance Company Ltd. for setting aside the impugned Award dated 16.04.2013 whereas MAC.APP. 834/2013 has been preferred by the Claimants for enhancement of compensation amount in terms of the impugned Award dated 16.04.2013.

3. Both these appeals arise out of the impugned Award dated 16.04.2013 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and have their genesis in the same incident. Hence, both these appeals are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Learned Claims Tribunal vide the impugned Award dated 16.04.2013 granted the following relief:

FACTUAL MATRIX

5. On the unfortunate day of the accident, i.e. 27.04.2008, the deceased was hit by tractor no. RJ-05-RA-2064 attached with trolley being driven by the driver (Respondent No. 1 before the learned Claims Tribunal). The aforesaid accident happened at Gali No. 7 in front of Govindpuri, Ravidas Marg, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi. The injured was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. An FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. A claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased. The driver, owner and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle were made Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement denying the claim of the petitioners and contending that they had been falsely implicated in the case. A written statement was also filed by respondent No. 3/Insurance Company denying the claim of the petitioners but admitting the fact that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-05-RA-2064 was insured with it vide policy valid from 16.06.2007 to 15.06.2008.

7. Upon going through the pleadings of the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road vehicular accident that took place on 27.04.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-05-RA-2064 by respondent no. 1?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief”

8. In support of their claim, the claimants got examined three witnesses: (i) Mr. Rahat Habib Khan, father of the deceased (PW-1); (ii) Mr. Imran Ali, eye-witness