IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal while enhancing it for loss of consortium and estate, affirming the dependency of the claimants on the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The Insurance Company (non-claimant No.3) and claimants, both have filed these misc. appeals under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 (Act) challenging the judgment and award dated 11.12.2015 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.356/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to tune of Rs.6,24,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 28.10.2013. All the non-claimants were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants, who are sister and elder brother of deceased Nathulal, preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- on account of untimely death of Nathulal. In the claim petition it was stated that on 12.10.2013 at about 09:00 pm, Nathulal after fetching water was coming to his home, near National High Hotel, he was hit from behind by offending Truck bearing registration number GJ-18-T-9132, coming from Kamlighat, on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver. As a result of which, Nathulal died on the spot.

3. Despite service of summons of the claim petition upon non-claimants No. 1 and 2, nobody appeared on their behalf and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against them. No reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.4.

4. The claim petition was contested by the non-claimant No.3 Insurance Company by filing its reply while denying involvement of the insured vehicle on the relevant day and time and the deceased himself was negligent for the accident. It was further stated that the claimants were not the dependent upon the deceased. It was further stated that there was violation of the conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation.

5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed two issues, which inter-alia reads as under:

^^1- D;k fnukad 12-10-2013 dks le; yxHkx 9-00 ih-,e- ij jktekxZ gksVy ds ikl] xzke c?kkuk] ,u-,p- 8 ij iqfyl Fkkuk fnosj {ks= esa Vªd la[;k th-ts-18&Vh&9132 dks mlds pkyd us rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dj nh ftlls ukFkwyky dh e`R;q gks x;h\

2- D;k izkFkhZx.k mDr nq?kZVuk esa mDr e`rd dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA ;fn gka] rks fdl i{kdkj ls fdruh jkf’k\

6. In support of their claim petition, the claimants examined AW. 1- Ms. Dakhu and AW. 2 Sanwra and also exhibited certain documents as Ex.1 to Ex.12.

7. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and thereby awarded compensation of Rs.6,24,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. in favour of claimants.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the appellant Insurance Company has challenged the judgment impugned and the claimants have filed appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

9. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company viz. CMA No.634/2016 was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.03.2016 and an interim order was also passed staying the execution of the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Insurance Company submitted that the deceased himself was married and was having a son, however, the wife and son of the deceased were not impleaded party in the claim petition, though they were necessary and proper party and, therefore, claim petition itself was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that when first class heirs of deceased were there, the submitted being the sister and elder brother of deceased could not have claimed compensation by filing the claim petition. While adverting to the testimony of AW.1 Ms. Dakhu (Claimant No.1) and AW.2 Sanwra, nephew of the claimants, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company subm