The court established the principle that under Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is liable to pay compensation if the insured dies after the death of other victims in the accident.

In one unfortunate accident, 6 family members of appellant died and, therefore, 6 claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was decided by common award dated 2nd June, 2006 by the Motor Accident C;laims Tribunal (Court of Add!. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Udaipur Headquarter Salumbar). The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,02,qOO/ - in total on account of death of 6 persons out of whom 4 were minor sons and daughters of the appellant, one was wife of the appellant and one was the mother of the, appellant. The appellant, therefore, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11th July, 1994 deceased Smt. Vimla; Miss Parisha, Miss Hetal. Master Hitesh. Master Nilesh and Smt. Ganga were travelling in Jeep No. GH-9B-2234 along with the appellant. The jeep owner Ashok Kumar Was driving the jeep and as per the allegation of the claimant, Ashok Kumar had driven the jeep rashly and negligently and the went out of control and fell in the well, which was near the side of the road after breaking the boundary wall of the Well resulting into death of 6 persons named above. Subsequently, the owner-cum-driver Ashok Kumar also died leaving behind his only minor son Lala.

3. For this accident, FIR No. 03/1994 was registered in Police Station Paoada, however under Section 174, Cr. P.C. In the said First Information Report under Section 174 Cr. P.C. Final Report was submitted in Court.

4. The claimant being father of four minor children and being husband of Smt. Vimla and as son of Smt. Ganga submitted 6 claims petitions namely, Claim Case No. 287/2005, due to death of Miss Hetal, age 3 years claiming compensation of Rs.6.12,000/-, Claim Case No. 286/2005, due to death of appellants daughter Miss Parisha, age 7 years, claiming compensation of Rs. 7.12,000/-. Claim Case No. 288/ 2005 due to death of Master Hitesh, age 10 years claiming compensation of Rs.5.62,000/-, Claim Case No. 289/2005 due to death of Master Nilesh. age 5 years claiming compensation of Rs. 6,62,000/-. Claim Case No. 290/2005 due to death of claimants appellants mother Smt. Ganga, age 65 years claiming Rs. 3.57,000/- Claim Case No. 285/2005 due to death of appellants wife Smt. Vimla, age 34 years claiming compensation of Rs. 7.82,000/-.

5. The claim was contested by the respondent Insurance Company and was not contested by the respondent Lala son of owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. The respondent Insurance Company submitted that it was not a case if accident, but it was an act of God and case under Section 174. Cr. P.C. was registered and, therefore, there was no negligence on me part of the driver of the vehicle. It is also submitted that more persons than the capacity of the vehicle were travelling in the Vehicle at the time of accident and thereby, the owner of the vehicle breached the condition of the Policy. It is also submitted that, that was the rainy day and the Well was submerged and the driver could not know about the Well and because of this act of God, the accident occurred resulting into death of 6 persons.

6. Before the tribunal Natha alone gave his statement and produced the copies obtained from the Police challan, which includes the copy of the Insurance Policy and the driving license of the deceased Ashok Kumar and site report. No evidence was produced by any of the non-claimants-respondents. The tribunal after considering the plea of the respondent of act of God and documentary evidence, held that the driver of the vehicle Ashok Kumar was negligent and driving the vehicle rashly, which caused the death of 6 persons. However, while granting compensation, the tribunal was of the view that in peculiar facts of the case it is not appropriate to assess and award the separate compensation for each death to the appellant and the consolidated compensation will be just and proper. The tribunal assessed the income of the mother, wife of the appel