The main legal point established is the requirement for just and reasonable compensation in accident claim cases, considering factors such as income, age, and future prospects of the deceased, and the relevance of legal precedents in assessing compensation.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Appellant Insurance. Company choose to prefer five appeals in five claim cases, out of total nine accident claim cases which were decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh by common award dated 11.07.2003.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2002 after performing the last rites of deceased Ami Lal, family members of deceased Ami Lal and his relatives were coming back to Rajgarh in a Jeep No. RJ 1OC 1764 and while coming back, they met with accident resulting into death of seven persons, namely, Mangi Lal, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Mohini Devi, Rawat Mal, Mahaveer Prasad, Tilok Chand and Rakesh Kumar. One Ram Kishan and another Ramesh Kalu suffered serious injuries. It was also alleged the Murari Lal (non-claimant No. 3 in the Claim Case No. 53/2002).by driving the jeep rashly and negligently caused the accident. The accident occurred at Deihi-Bikaner Road on 28.6.2002 at 4.00 p.m. An F.I.R. No. 196/2002 was lodged in the Police Station, Sapala and challan was filed against the said Murari Lal under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 338, I.P.C. The claims were:

(i) The Claim Petition No. 53/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi & Ors. clainiing compensation of Rs. 41,72,000/ - on account of death of Mangi Lal. The claimants are Mangi Lal’s son and daughter as well as mother of Mangi Lal.

(ii) TheClaim Petition No. 54/2002 was filed by Geeta Devi and Others due to death of Smt. Kanta w/o of deceased Mangi Lal. In this claim petition, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 54,38,000/-.

(iii) In Claim Petition No. 5 5/2002 claimants Mahesh Kumar and Others claimed compensation of Rs. 13,50,000/-on account of death of Mohini Devi. Mohini Devi was mother of the claimants.

(iv) In Claim Petition No. 56/2002, Ravi Kant and Shashi Kant claimed compensation of Rs. 22,50,000/-on account of death of their father Rawat Mal.

(v) In Claim Petition No. 57/2002, the claimants Dhapa Bai w/o Mahaveer Prasad and sons of Mahaveer Prasad claimed compensation of Rs. 55,90,000/-on account of death of death of Mahaveer Prasad.

(vi) In Claim Petition No. 5 8/2002, claimants Gayatri Devi and four sons of deceased Tilok Chand claimed compensation of Rs. 17,38.000/-on account of death of Tilok Chand.

(vii) In Claim Petition No. 60/2002, Smt. Mamta w/o of deceased Rakesh Kumar and two minor sons of the deceased Rakesh Kumar and mother of , Rakesh Kumar claimed compensation of Rs. 4,66,70,000/-.

(viii) In Claim Petition No. 61/2002, claimant Ramesh Goyal claimed compensation of Rs. 3,61,288/-as h suffered injuries in the said accident dated 28.6.2002.

(ix) In Claim Petition No. 8/2003, the injured Ram Kishan claimed compensation of Rs. 6,32,560/-.

3. The tribunal, after trial, awarded compensation as mentioned below:

S.No. Claim Case No. Amount

(i) 53/2002 Rs. 6,24,194/-

(ii) 54/2002 Rs. 8,27,900/-

(iii) 55/2002 Rs. 1,70,500/-

(iv) 56/2002 Rs. 3,09,340/-

(v) 57/2002 Rs. 1,58,500/-

(vi) 58/2002 Rs. 1,78,435/-

(vii) 60/2002 Rs. 48, 31, 812/-

(viii) 61/2002 Rs. 66, 324/-

(ix) 08/2002 Rs. 2,46.709/-

4. The tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum in case the amount is deposited by the non-applicant including the appellant within a period of two months from the date of award and, in default, interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

5. The appellant has challenged the five awards passed in Claim Cases No. 53/02, 54/02, 55/02, 56/02 and 60/02 only on other grounds also, other than the grounds which are available to the appellant under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the appellants were granted permission to contest the claim petitions on merit by the tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the jeep involved in the accident was registered and insured for the private use only whereas the same was used for carrying the passengers for higher and reward and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Compan