JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, 'MV ACT'), preferred by the insurance company, seeks to assail the award dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter, 'the learned Tribunal'). Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 97,23,040/- with interest @ 9% p.a., as compensation to the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 4, who are the two minor sons and parents of the deceased Shri Raj Kumar, who died in the accident on 13.12.2016.

2. Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the brief factual matrix, as is necessary for adjudication of the present appeal, may be noted.

3. On 13.12.2016, Sh. Raj Kumar, a constable/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) along with his wife namely Smt. Seema Devi and 9 years old daughter Ritu was travelling on a motor cycle bearing registration number UP-81AA-0367. On reaching Kalandi Kunj Road No. 13, near Metro Yard, New Delhi, the motor cycle was hit from behind by a truck bearing registration number HR- 38V-6909. The truck which was insured with the appellant was being driven by respondent no.5/driver of the insured truck. In the accident, Sh. Raj Kumar, his wife Smt. Seema and minor daughter Ritu, all succumbed to the injuries sustained by them. Consequently, a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) being MACT No. 710/2017 was filed by the police. Relying on the same, the two minor sons and aged parents of Sh. Raj Kumar preferred a claim seeking compensation on account of his death due to the accident. Similar claims were raised by them seeking compensation on account of the death of Smt. Seema and Ritu in the same accident. Even though all the three claims have been allowed vide the common impugned award, since the grounds for grant of compensation in respect of the three claims are different, three separate appeals have been filed by the insurance company and are being decided separately. The present appeal deals only with the challenge to the compensation granted on account of the death of Sh. Raj Kumar.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the claimants, in support of their claim that the death of Sh. Raj Kumar, Smt. Seema Devi and their daughter Ritu was a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with the appellant, the claimants examined two witnesses. Though the appellant cross examined these witnesses, they did not lead any evidence to substantiate their plea that the accident took place because of the negligence of the deceased Sh. Raj Kumar, who was driving the motor cycle with two pillion riders. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the motor cycle had been crushed after being hit by the offending truck from behind and therefore, opined that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by respondent no.5.

5. At this stage, it would be apposite to note the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard as contained in Para 16-19 of the award. The same read as under:

"16. From the discussions above, it is evident that the negligence has to be established in petition filed under Section 166 of Act and the same may be proved through the direct evidence or through the circumstances surrounding the accident or on the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur'. In my view, present case is squarely covered by the principle of res ipsa loquitor. In the FIR placed on record it is recorded that it became known from the spot that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and high speed and hit against the motorcycle and crushed the motorcyclist as a result he died; the truck tried to escape but public stopped the truck and thereafter gave beatings to the driver and its helper and the PCR came at the spot and took the driver and PCR to the hospital for treatment. These are the observations of the 10 who reached at the spot after receiving intimat