IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the tribunal's findings on negligence and modified compensation amounts, emphasizing the standard of proof in negligence claims and the admissibility of police documents.

JUDGMENT :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. The civil misc. appeal nos. 3367/2017, 3371/2017 and 3372/2017 have been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) assailing the judgment and award dated 22.06.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur Mahanagar (hereinafter as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in MAC Case Nos. 13/2015, 15/2015 and 14/2015 and whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the respective claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 72,04,298/- or Rs. 12,70,360/- and Rs. 61,20,455/- respectively in favour of respective claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the respective claim petitions, while fastening the liability upon the respondent/owner and respondent/driver of the offending vehicle along with the appellant/Insurance Company, jointly and severally.

2. The S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 2666/2017, 2665/2017 and 2667/2017, seeking enhancement, have been filed by the respective respondents/claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 22.06.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case Nos. 13/2015, 15/2015 and 14/2015 respectively. Since all these appeals arise from the same accident, and both the insurance company as well as the claimants in the respective claim petitions have preferred the appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the claimants in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2666/2017 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3367/2017 would be referred to as claimants-1, the claimants in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2665/2017 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3371/2017 would be referred to as claimants-2 and the claimants in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2667/2017 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3372/2017 would be referred to as claimants-3 when referred to in context of their respective claim petition and as ‘the claimants’ when referred to cumulatively. Also, the insurance company, as it is same in all the appeals, would be referred to as the insurance company for the sake of convenience.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.09.2014, Sikandar Khan, Gopilal @ Goparam, Mahaveer Singh and Bharat Mehta were travelling in the car bearing registration No. RJ-19 temperory 183688 (hereinafter as ‘the car’) from Balotara to Loonkaransar and at around 7:00 AM to 7:30 AM the truck-trolla bearing registration No. GJ-12AT-9222 (hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being driven rashly and negligently by Kuldeep Singh (hereinafter as ‘the respondent/driver’) came from the opposite side and dashed into the car. As a result of the accident all the four persons travelling in the car died on the spot. The FIR No. 86/2014 (Ex.1) was lodged and the police after investigation filed chargesheet (Ex.2) against the respondent/driver under Section 279, 304A, IPC. Subsequently, the MAC Case No. 13/2015 was filed by the claimants-1 under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on account of the death of Sikandar Khan (hereinafter as ‘the deceased-1’) the MAC case No. 15/2015 was filed by the claimants-2 under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on account of the death of Gopilal (hereinafter as ‘the deceased-2’) and the MAC Case No. 14/2015 was filed by the claimants-3 under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on account of the death of Bharat Mehta (hereinafter as the deceased-3) before the learned tribunal.

4. The respondent/driver and Pawandeep Singh (hereinafter as ‘the respondent/owner’) of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the claim petitions and averred that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and not that of the offending vehicle. It was averred by them in their reply to the claim petitions that the driver of the car, while trying to overtake one other vehicle, dashed into the offending vehicle.

5. The insurance company in its reply to the claim peti