The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of rash and negligent driving under the Motor Vehicles Act and the attribution of liability in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and award dated 28/08/2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in Motor Accident Claims Case Nos. 60/99, 62/99 and 96/99. The Insurance Company has also preferred civil cross-objection in the appeal preferred by Babulal (CMA No.231/2002). The claim petitions were disposed of by a common judgment as they arose out of the same accident which occurred on 12/01/1999. Thus, the present appeals as well as cross-objection are also being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that while Hadmana Ram, Vashudev and Babulal were travelling on motorcycle to Jasol, a tanker insured with the respondent/Insurance Company being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the motorcycle from the opposite direction. In the said accident, Vashudev and Hadmana Ram died and Babulal sustained several injuries. Thus, the claim petitions were preferred.

3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petitions of the appellants-claimants and awarded compensation as mentioned in the judgment and award impugned.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that findings of the Tribunal on issue No.l is incorrect to the extent that the claimants have been found negligent to the tune of 20% as three persons were travelling on the motorcycle instead of two persons. He submits that there is a categorical finding on issue No.1 to the effect that the motorcycle was being driven on the correct side of the road i.e. left side and the driver of the tanker was coming from the opposite direction and the tanker was being driven rashly and negligently causing the accident. He submits that once the finding of rash and negligent driving is recorded by the Tribunal attributing the driver of the tanker responsible for causing accident then merely because three persons were riding on the motorcycle should not automatically be viewed as a rash and negligent act on their part and, therefore, fastening of 20% liability in the present case on the claimants is uncalled for. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd.,Jodhpur vs. Smt. Santosh Devi & Ors (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.324/2010) decided on 15/04/2013.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the finding on issue No.1 does not suffer from any infirmity as three persons were riding on the motorcycle instead of two, which is not permissible as per Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation amount in this case. Learned counsel submits that the attribution of the liability to the tune of 20% by the Tribunal on the motorcycle riders was just and proper. Thus, the finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.98/2003

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of the death of Vashu Dev, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the amount towards the future prospects in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017/ACJ/2700, 2017(4)J.L.J.R. 275, 2017(4)P.L.J.R. Therefore, the same is required to be added and awarded. He further submits that although the deceased Vashu Dev was a bachelor, the Tribunal erred while deducting 1/3 of the income towards his personal expenditure. Therefore, only 1/2 was required to be deducted.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the proprietor of Bhagwat General Store deposed before the Tribunal that Vashu Dev was being paid Rs.3,500/- per month as salary and the income certi