The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove rash and negligent act on the part of the driver/owner of the vehicle to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the consequences of suppressing relevant facts in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company, which insured the LPK Tipper bearing registration No. AS-11 BC-6999 owned by the respondent No. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the father, mother and two sisters of the deceased respectively. The respondent No. 6 is the driver of the LPK Tipper. The appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Award dated 12.06.2019 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 53/2017, by which compensation amount of Rs. 39,55,000/- has been awarded to the claimants, alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till final payment.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are the claimants filed MACT Case No. 53/2017 due to the death of K. Lalruatpuia, 29 years, who died in a vehicular accident on 10.07.2017, involving a Truck (LPK Tipper) bearing registration No. AS 11 BC 6999 and bike No. MZ 04 6332, in which the deceased was the pillion rider. While the bike driver sustained injury on his hand due to the accident, the pillion rider (deceased) succumbed to his injury after arriving in the Civil Hospital, Aizawl.

4. The respondents/claimants Nos. 1 to 4 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the MV Act, 1988 stating that the deceased was doing the business of distributing betel leaves in Aizawl South area and was earning not less than Rs. 25,000/- per month.

5. The appellant filed their written statement stating that the claim petition was not maintainable and that no liability could be a fixed upon the appellant.

6. The learned Tribunal framed three issues which are as follows:-

"i) Whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style?

ii) Whether there was fault on the part of the driver or owner of the accident vehicle?

iii) Whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay?

7. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, who was the father of the deceased, gave his evidence as CW-1. Sh. Lalmuansanga, ASI of Police, who had made enquiries with regard to the accident adduced his evidence as CW-2. The two other witnesses were CW 3 & 4, who were persons who knew the deceased and had given their evidence to prove that the deceased earned between Rs. 20,000/- to 30,000/- per month.

8. The learned Tribunal thereafter passed the impugned Judgment & Award and awarded compensation as follows:-

9. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Judgment & Award has to be set aside, as the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were not able to prove that there was any rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the LPK Tipper. As the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, the award of compensation in the absence of any finding that the driver of the Truck was rash and negligent was illegal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no eye witness was examined by the learned Tribunal and neither was any statement of any eye witness exhibited before the learned Tribunal. He accordingly submits that rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Truck was not proved.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the income of