IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that in motor vehicle accident claims, the burden of proof lies on the claimants to establish negligence, and the adequacy of compensation is determined based on the evidence of loss and suffering presented.

JUDGMENT :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. These misc. appeals have been filed by, both non-claimant and the claimants, under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 questioning the validity of the judgment and award dated 11.03.2024 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road, District Sirohi (‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Cas No.97/2017 (CIS No.97/2017 : Rajendra Singh Chouhan vs. Kasnaram & Anr.) and MAC Case No.109/2017 (CIS No.109/2017 : Durga Kunwar & Anr. vs. Kasnaram & Anr.), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimant-Rajendra Singh Chouhan for the injuries suffered by him to the tune of Rs.1,28,000/-and Rs.3,50,000/-have been awarded in favour of claimants, Durga Kunwar and Bhupendra Singh for the death of Ms. Shivika along with interest @ 6% p.a. The liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon the non-claimant No.2 insurance company. The claimants have filed misc. appeals for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. All these four appeals arise out of same accident as also judgment and award are being heard together and disposed of by this judgment.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimant-Rajendra Singh filed claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him and claimants, namely, Durga Kunwar and Bhupendra Singh filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of their daughter, Ms. Shivika in the accident, which took place on 31.10.2016. It was inter-alia alleged in the claim petitions that on 31.10.2016 in the afternoon at about 01:30 pm, injured Rajendra Singh with his wife and niece was going from Jhadoli to Sirohi in car bearing registration number RJ-24-CA-2708. When they reached in front of nursery, then the non-claimant No.1, who was coming from Sirohi, while plying his car bearing registration number GJ-05-JP-7536 rashly and negligently, hit the car of Rajendra Singh, wherein occupants of the car sustained injuries and on account of injuries suffered, Ms. Shivika died. The accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. In Claim Petition No.109/2017, claimants claimed that in the accident, they have lost their eight years old daughter, namely, Shivika, who at the time of accident was studying in Class I at Laxmi Singhania School, Banas. The claimants claimed that in the accident they had lost their daughter, who was a brilliant girl and if she would have alive, she would get Govt. job etc. The claimants thus claimed compensation of Rs..22,45,000/- for untimely death of Ms. Shivika.

In Claim Petition No.97/2017, filed by claimant-Rajendra Singh, it was alleged that claimant was 44 years of age and he was Government employee and his monthly salary was Rs.35,000/-. He sustained fracture in left thigh and sustained injuries on left knee, head and ribs. The claimant claimed that he was admitted at Civil Hospital, Sirohi and thereafter for better treatment, the injured was taken Sagar Orthopedic Hospital, Palanpur and he undergone operations. The claimant/injured claimed compensation under various to the tune of Rs.22,45,000/-.

4. The non-claimants were summoned by the learned Tribunal and after receipt of summons, non-claimant No.1 filed his consolidated reply to the claim petitions while denying the facts for want of knowledge. It was alleged in the reply that there was no fault of the non-claimant No.1 and the accident occurred due to negligence of the injured himself. It was alleged that in the FIR of the accident, which was lodged by one Gajendra Singh, the name of driver of vehicle number GJ-05-JP-7536 was mentioned Magaram Choudhary, to whom he (non-claimant No.1) was not knowing nor ever met him. It was alleged that on the date of accident, the vehicle was plied by non-claimant No.1. The non-claimant No.1 thus prayed that the claim petitions be rejected.

5. The non-claimant No.2/appellant Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd. filed reply to the claim petitions while refuting