JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. V. Devnath, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tayongchuba, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Moajungla, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

2. By Order dated 08.08.2022, the service of notice upon respondent no. 4 is deemed to be served. But despite service of notice, none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 4.

3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against a judgment and award dated 30.01.2020 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland (“the Tribunal” in short) in MAC Case no. 54/2014. By the judgment and award dated 30.01.2020, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7,70,000/ (Rupees seven lakh seventy thousand) including Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) towards No-Fault Liability, as compensation to the three claimants, who are the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the instant appeal, with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization.

4. The claimants-respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 are the legal representatives of one Juna Dhan. In the claim application instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants had projected that the deceased, Juna Dhan, on 23.08.2013, was proceeding as a pedestrian and at that point of time, a vehicle bearing registration no. NL-01/A-4677, proceeding in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down Juna Dhan. As a result of the accident, Juna Dhan met instantaneous death on the spot. On receipt of the claim application, the same was registered and numbered as MAC Case no. 54/2014. Upon such registration, the learned Tribunal, by order dated 19.03.2014, issued notices to the owner, the driver and the insurer of the subject-vehicle bearing registration no. NL-01/A-4677. On receipt of notices, the owner and the driver of the subject-vehicle had submitted a joint written statement as opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2. The insured as the opposite party no. 3 had also filed its written statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the claim petition is maintainable?

2. Whether the deceased Juna Dhan died involving rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration no. NL-07/A-4677 (Tata 207 DIE) and accident dated 23.08.2013 covered by Bokajan Police Station Case no. 110/13?

3. Whether the deceased was the joint tort feasor?

4. Whether the respondent driver of the offending vehicle was holding the relevant vehicle documents, driving license and Insurance Policy of the relevant time?

5. Whether the Claimants are entitled to compensation as prayed for and if so to what extent and payable to whom?

In the course of proceedings, the claimant’s side examined two witnesses :- (i) PW-1 – Smti. Silina Dhan (Claimant no. 1/respondent no. 1); and (ii) PW-2 – Ranjit Orang.

While PW-1 was the wife of the deceased, who did not witness the accident, PW-2 deposed as an eye-witness to the accident. PW-1 inter-alia exhibited the following documents :-(i) Exhibit P1 – Claim Application; (ii)Exhibit P2 – Police Report in Form 54; (iii) Exhibit P4 – Registration Certificate; (iv) Exhibit P5 – Insurance Policy; (v) Exhibit P6 – Accident Report; (vi) Exhibit P7 – Requisition of Police Case no. 110/2013; and (vii) Exhibit P9 – Post-Mortem Examination Report. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.

5. After closure of evidence, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record, decided all the issues in favour of the respondents-claimants. The deceased was not found to be joint tortfeasor. The learned Tribunal reached a finding that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the subject-vehicle, which caused the accident on 23.08.2013 resulting into his death. In so far as the issue no. 5 is concerned, the learned Tribunal accepted the age of the deceased as 45 (forty-five) years at the time of the accident, on