The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability for compensation in a road accident case is determined based on the proven negligence of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

1. Captioned first appeals u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act from the common judgment and award dated 20.10.2019 passed in MACP No.630 of 2020 as well as MACP No.1288 of 2020 and allied matters, by which the learned MACT (Aux.), Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur, partly allowed respective claim petitions.

2. In MACP No.630 of 2010, the learned Tribunal granted compensation in tune of Rs.34,26,200/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till realization, in favour of the claimants, which has given rise to filing of First Appeal No.2301 of 2021 at the instance of the appellant – Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.

3. In MACP No.1288 of 2020, learned Tribunal granted compensation in tune of Rs.3,64,600/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till realization, in favour of the claimants, which has given rise to filing of First Appeal No.1772 of 2020 at the instance of the appellant – Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.

4. In absence of the challenge to the involvement of the vehicle in of the motor accident as well as quantum assessed in both the claim petitions, the facts of the case are stated pithily as to decide the challenge made in narrow compass by way of these appeals.

5. On 31.1.2010, deceased Amrutbhai and others were travelling in Maruti Van bearing registration No.GJ-1-HQ-6409 (in short “Maruti Van”). They were returning from village Ranuja. Maruti Van was driven by deceased Amrutbhai and when it was passing near Chandravati village on Abu Road, at that time Rickshaw Tempo (in short “the rickshaw”) bearing registration No.RJ 24 PA 781 came from opposite side in a wrong direction with excessive speed and rashly and negligently dashed to the Maruti Van resulted into flipping of Maruti Van. Said accident was registered with concerned Police Station as an offence. Amrutbhai, who was driving Maruti Van, succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Whereas, others, who are travellers in the Maruti Van, received minor to major injuries. Qua each victim of road accident, MACPs were filed. However, these appeals are limited to the challenge made in the judgment and award passed in MACP Nos.630/2010 and 1288/2020.

6. The learned Tribunal in MACP No.630/2010, assessed the compensation as follows:-

(This claim petition is filed by heirs and legal representatives of deceased Amrutbhai.)

Annual income of deceased Rs.37,900/- x 12 = Rs.4,54,800/-

1/3rd from the Annual income is required to be deducted Rs.4,54,800/- % 1/3=Rs.1,51,600/-

Thus after deducting 1/3 from the income of the deceased – Annual income would come to Rs.4,54,800/- - Rs.1,51,600/- Rs.3,03,200/-

Total loss of dependency Rs.3,03,200/- x 11 = Rs.33,35,200/-

Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses Rs.91,000/-

(This claim petition is filed by heirs and legal representatives of deceased Tulsidas Sadhu, who was one of the occupants of the Maruti Van.)

7. Alike for the claimants of MACP No.1288/2020, the learned Tribunal in, assessed the compensation as follows:-

Annual income of deceased 3800/- x 12 = Rs.45,600/-

1/3rd from the Annual income is required to be deducted Rs.45,600/- % 1/3= Rs.15,200/-

Thus after deducting 1/3 from the income of the deceased – Annual income would come to Rs.45,600/-

- Rs.15,200/- Rs.30,400/-

Total loss of dependency Rs.30,300/- x 9 = Rs.2,73,600/-

Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses Rs.91,000/-

8. While assessing this compensation, the learned Tribunal has taken assistance form the well celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3014 as well as in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others rendered in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014.

9. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for the appellant – insurance company – insurer of the rickshaw would submit that in present case, the learned Tribun