The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for a fatal accident under the Motor Vehicles Act and the assessment of compensation based on the income of the deceased and the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on behalf of the appellant-non-claimSant No.1 (RSRTC) against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 238/2017 (95/15) titled as "Nanuram & Anr. Vs. Mohanlal & Anr." whereby, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.7,86,000/- towards compensation on account of accidental death of their son (Bheema).

2. Briefly put the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on the fateful day of 17.11.2014 at around 08:40 in the morning, Bheema along with companion Kailash were going to drink tea at Basaad Bus Stand on motorcycle then, at the Basaad Bus Stand, a Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration number R.J.12 PA 0543 came from Mandsaur side, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the motorcycle and as a result of this hitting, Bhemma and his companion fell down; both sustained injuries; due to grievous injuries sustained by Bheema, he was taken to the District hospital, Pratapgarh from the site, where he was died during treatment; after the accident, FIR No. 524/2014 was chalked out and after investigation, Police has proceeded to file charge-sheet before the concerned Court against the non-applicant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code; that the said accident was occurred due to negligence of the non-applicant No.1 as a result of which, Bheema was died and for his sudden death, the claimants have facing pain and sufferings and they have been deprived from love and affection of their deceased son. Therefore, as mentioned in the claim petition, they may be allowed compensation from the respondents.

3. In their reply, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that averments as made in the claim petition are denied for want of information; that a false and fabricated case has been prepared with the help of police officials only to get the compensation; that there is no role of the non-applicant No.1 in the accident; in the special submissions, it was stated by the respondents that on the basis of false, incomplete averments and suspicious and non-readable documents, the claimants have presented the claim petition; that on the date and place, no accident was occurred with vehicle Bus No. RJ. 12 PA 0543; that no role has been played by the non-applicant No.1 in the accident; that on the contrary, deceased Bheema himself was responsible for the accident; that the alleged place of accident is turn and onwards, it is a public place and highway and there is movement of many vehicles; that it was also alleged that the deceased Bheema would have come on motorcycle in the middle of the road, he himself and by avoiding other vehicles, without wearing any helmet by violating the rules of traffic, while talking on mobile, in a state of drunkard by consuming liquor, going on the road and by losing his balance in hasten, he would have fell down on any hard place, resulted in injuries and would have died, therefore, he is responsible; Bheema was not having an effective and valid license to drive the motorcycle; that the owner of the motorcycle and the insurance company have not been made parties; that only with an intention to get compensation, Kailash was alleged to drive the motorcycle while deceased Bheema was alleged to be a companion; and in fact, Kailash was not present on the spot; that by manipulating, the case was present, therefore, claimants' claim is liable to be dismissed. It was prayed that the claim petition may be rejected.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues which read as under:-

5. On behalf of the claimants, AW-1 Nanuram, AW-2 Kailash and AW-3 Rajendra