The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the guidelines issued by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to determine the compensation amount in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 02.02.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali in Claim Case No. 13/2014 (483/2014) titled as "Bagdaram & Anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar & Anr." whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Hence, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of the compensation.

2. Briefly put the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on the fateful day of 07.09.2013, the claimants with their son, namely, Aakash, aged 06 years, were going from Sangawas to Biratiya Khurd on motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-22-MM-6135 at around 10 a.m., when they reached near Haziwas Piao then, another motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-22-SQ-6302 came, being driven rashly and negligently by the non-applicant No.1, hit their motorcycle; and as a result of collision, Aakash sustained injuries on his head and body and he (Aakash) was succumbed to death during treatment. The claimants have further averred in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the non-applicant No.1 was driver himself was the owner of the motorcycle, who drove the vehicle for his own benefit; and at the time of accident, the said vehicle was insured with the non-applicant No.2. A total sum of Rs.35,84,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation of the amount jointly and severally from the non-applicants.

3. In its reply, the non-applicant No.1 mainly stated that no accident has been occurred from his vehicle, on the contrary, the accident has been occurred due to mistake of father of the deceased; that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company; that at the time of accident, the answering non-applicant having a valid and effective driving license. Therefore, by submitting written statement, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. In its reply, on behalf of the non-applicant No.2, the averments as made in the claim petition were denied altogether. It was stated that no accident was occurred by the vehicle insured with it and the insured vehicle was allegedly involved in the accident. It was also stated that the vehicle was driven by violating the terms of the insurance policy. It was also mentioned that the claimants have made an exaggerated claim under various heads which is liable to be not allowable; the averments in regard to age of the deceased and regarding income have been allegedly wrongly. Therefore, by submitting reply, dismissal of the claim petition was prayed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as made in the claim petition as well as in the reply of both the non-applicants, the learned Tribunal has proceeded to frame as many as five issues, which read as under:-

6. In support of the claim petition, statement of Bagdaram was recorded as AW-1 and in documentary evidence, exhibits 1 to 15 were exhibited. On behalf of the non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company, NAW-1 Narendra Singh was got examined.

7. After hearing the final arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and keeping in mind the various judgments cited on behalf of the non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has proceeded to determine the issues. Issue No.1 regarding death of Aakash due to accident was found to be proved on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and the same was decided in favour of the claimants. Issue No.2 regarding ownership of vehicle was found to be proved on the basis of reply submitted by Suresh admitting that he was owner of motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-22-SQ-6302 and, therefore, this issue was also decided in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 3 regarding liability o