IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the assessment of compensation based on the deceased's income and financial dependency.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. - This judgment shall decide the present appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance company in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[MV Act] assailing the quantum of compensation decided vide the impugned award-cum-judgment dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi[MACT] in case No. 90/16/2010[Claim Application] titled as 'Smt. Sukhpal Kaur v. Vinglesh Chand and Others'., granted in favour of the claimants/respondent No. 1 to 4.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the claimants that on 13.10.2008, Sh. Iqbal Singh (deceased herein) aged 64 years, was travelling in Indica car bearing No. DL-3CW-8279 (herein referred to as the 'offending vehicle') which was being driven by Vinglesh Chand/respondent No.1/driver[Section 2(9) of MV Act: "driver" includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle] registered with Sohan Lal/respondent No.2/owner[Section 2(30) of MV Act: "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement] and insured with respondent No.3/New India Insurance. At about 5:30AM, when they reached near Hapur Bye Pass, the driver lost control over the vehicle and dashed the vehicle against a stationary truck bearing No. UP-2G-9660 from behind, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. No FIR was registered with respect to the incident, but a G.D. entry No.11 was recorded on 13.10.2008. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 on 07.04.2010. The deceased was survived by his wife, two sons and a daughter.

3. Respondent No.1, i.e. driver of the Indica Car, filed a reply stating that the accident took place due to the negligent act of the truck driver, who left the truck in the middle of the road without any headlights or the parking lights on. The respondent No.2/owner and respondent No.3/insurer stated that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the driver, owner and insurer of the truck involved, have not been impleaded as a party in the present matter. On the other hand, respondent No.4/Jahangir Alam and Tanvir Ahmed, who were the driver and registered owner of the truck respectively, stated that the truck was stationed/parked on the left side of the road and the accident took place due to recklessness attributable to the driver of the Indica car, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IMPUGNED ORDER:

4. Based on the pleadings, the learned MACT framed the following issues:

1. "Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 13.10.2008 at about 5.30 am near Hapur Byepass, towards Ram Nagar, Nainital, Uttrakhand caused by rash and negligent driver of car make Indica bearing no.DL-3CW-8279 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP"

2. Whether the LR's of deceased are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Relief?

5. Regarding Issue No.1, the learned MACT relied upon the testimony of Yajuvandar Singh (PW2), who categorically deposed about the date, time and manner of the accident to the effect that the offending vehicle hit the stationary truck from behind. In view of the aforesaid, the learned MACT held that the driver/respondent No.1 had been guilty of rash and negligent driving. The relevant observations are reproduced below:

"11. Now coming to the factual matrix of present case it be seen that the PW2 has confi