JUDGMENT :

P.K. LOHRA, J.

Appellants, who have lost their young bachelor son, have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) for enhancement of compensation amount determined and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur (for short, ‘Tribunal’) by judgment and award dated 25th of August, 2011, passed in MAC Case No. 2/2005, questioning the impugned judgment and award on two counts; firstly, that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in absolving the insurer of its liability to pay compensation, and secondly, the amount of compensation quantified and awarded by the learned Tribunal is not adequate.

2. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal decided the claim petition of the appellants under Section 166 of the Act and one other claim petition bearing MAC Case No. 3164/2005, filed by injured Jitendra Singh, arising out of the same accident. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the appellant-claimants to the tune of Rs.6,20,000 under different heads against the claimed amount of Rs.31,75,000 fastening liability on owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

3. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that on the fateful day of 25th of September, 2004, when deceased Prashant along with Jitendra Singh was on way to Ambaji, riding motorc/cle bearing registration No. RJ 12-2M-3348, near Mobgardh on a sloppy turn, Tempo No. RJ-14-1G-0548 driven at high speed rashly and negligently hit them. The accident resulted in sustaining grave and serious injuries to both and during treatment Prashant, son of present appellants, expired. The said accident was reported to the police and FIR was lodged, which eventually culminated into filing of charge-sheet against first-respondent Tempo driver. The appellant-claimants quantifying the claim of Rs.31,75,000 under different heads, inter-alia, pleaded that at the time of death deceased Prashant was 21 years old and was serving with Contractor Karansingh as Supervisor and thereby earning Rs.4800 per mesem.

4. The claim petitions were contested by respondents but no reply was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No. 3 insurer filed its reply and denied most of the averments of claim petitions for want of knowledge. Insurer pleaded that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the insured Tempo vehicle and furthermore the driver of said vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence as he was holding a licence to ply light motor vehicles. While adverting to the quantum of compensation, the insurer pleaded in the return that appellant-claimants have claimed exorbitant amount of compensation for which they are not entitled.

Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled three issues for determination.

5. In order to substantiate claim, first appellant appeared in the witness box and other witnesses including injured Jitendra Singh testified on oath. Besides oral evidence, 157 documents were produced by the claimants, which were exhibited. E. converso, on behalf of respondent-Insurer one witness NAW1 Harish Kumar appeared in the witness box and three documents were exhibited.

6. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence tendered by rival parties, decided issue No. 1 about driving of offending vehicle Tempo by its driver at a high speed in rash and negligent manner resulting in death of Prashant and severe injuries to other rider of motorcycle Jitendra in favour of claimants and against respondent No. 1 driver. The learned Tribunal, while recording its finding on issue No. 1 also relied on documentary evidence produced by the appellants and factum of non-appearance of driver of offending vehicle in the witness box. As