IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that negligence in motor vehicle accidents can be established through charge sheets and that compensation calculations must consider future prospects and dependents.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.) :

1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’) has been preferred by the appellant/non-claimant- Insurance Company challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.52/2011 (377/2014), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,86,500/- in favour of claimants/respondents No.1 to 6 along with interest @7.5% p.a. The liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.38,01,000/- on account of unfortunate death of sole breadwinner late Sh. Ganpat Ram, in the accident, which took place on 09.01.2014. In the claim petition, it was stated that on 09.01.2014, deceased Ganpat Ram at about 08:00 pm was going on motorcycle as pillion rider from Karnu to his ‘Dhani’ on motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-21-SK-3308. The motorcycle was being plied by Gopal Singh (non-claimant No.1) rashly and negligently and on account which Ganpat Ram fell down and received grievous injuries. On account of injuries, Ganpat Ram died during treatment on 20.01.2014. The claimants stated that deceased was doing construction work and apart from the doing the construction work, he used to do agriculture work. The deceased was thus earning Rs.15,000/- per month from doing the aforesaid works.

3. After issuance of the notices of the claim petition, reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.1 and 2 while denying the submissions made in the claim petition. It was stated that no accident took place by the motorcycle. The deceased met with accident with another vehicle, however, with a view to claim compensation, the FIR of the accident was lodged while falsely implicating the motorcycle. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured and, therefore, liability of paying the compensation, was of the insurance company.

4. On behalf of appellant- Insurance Company, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts stated in the claim petition, except that the vehicle was insured by it. It was stated that rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle and no premium was charged covering the risk of pillion rider. It was thus prayed that the insurance company be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation.

5. The learned Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings of the parties, settled four issues for determination.

6. For proving his case, the claimants examined witnesses, viz. AW.1 Rami Devi, AW.2 Bhura Ram, and AW.3 Shera Ram and also placed on record documents, which were exhibited as Ex. 1 to 37. The Non-claimant No.1 examined himself as NAW.1. No documentary evidence was tendered by the non-claimants.

7. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1, after considering the evidence produced before it, has recorded a finding that after investigation in the FIR No.16/2014 lodged by complainant, Bhura Ram Jat, at Police Station Panchodi, District Nagaur, charge sheet was filed against the rider i.e. Gopal Singh for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and no explanation was furnished by said Gopal Singh for his false implication in the accident. The learned Tribunal decided Issue No.2 against the insurance company while recording a finding that the non-claimant was having valid licence to ply the motorcycle. The learned Tribunal decided the issue No.3 partially in favour of claimants and after considering the evidence brought before it, awarded compensation of Rs.10,61,424/- towards the loss of income on account of death of Sh. Ganpat Ram. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. The learne