The court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award, affirming that the Insurance Company failed to prove policy breach and that the compensation calculation adhered to established legal principles.

ORDER :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.04.2018 passed in MACT No.275/2018 (CIS No.781/2017) by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.II, Udaipur, the appellant- Insurance Company is before this Court by way of this appeal seeking quashing of the same.

2. Brief facts first. On 03.05.2017, at around 7:30 a.m., Dinesh Kumar Meena since deceased and Shanti Lal were riding a motorcycle from Sepur to Parsad. When they reached Bhur Ghati (Chchani), Parsad, a Bolero vehicle bearing registration number GJ-1-HL-5251, being driven by Respondent No. 5-Firoz Khan(Driver) in a rash and negligent manner, collided with their motorcycle. As a result, Dinesh sustained fatal injuries and died, while Shanti Lal suffered grievous injuries.

2.1 FIR No. 88/2017 under Sections 279, 337 & 304 A of IPC was registered at Police Station Sarada and charge sheet was filed after investigation. Respondents No. 1-4 filed a claim case No.275/2018 before the Tribunal at Udaipur, seeking compensation for the death of Dinesh asserting that the deceased was 30 years old, was of sound mind and had good physique. He was working as a mason and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month.

2.2 In Shanti Lal’s case it was claimed that he was aged 30 years old and was working as mason and was earning Rs.12000/- per month. He sustained fracture of femur and dislocation of clavicle bone. He (Shanti Lal) claimed compensation on account of injuries, physical pain and mental agony apart from financial loss. 2.3 Respondent No.5(Abhey Singh (Owner Of Bolero No Gj- 1-Hl-5251) admitted that was owner of the offending vehicle and that at the relevant time, respondent No.4(Firoz Khan ) was it’s driver. He, however, pleaded the negligence of the deceased Dinesh and petitioner Shanti Lal by not following the traffic rules. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid license, permit etc. and the breach of the terms of the policy.

2.3 The learned Tribunal framed following issues:-

“(1) Whether on dated 03.05.2017 at about 7.30 a.m. while deceased who were riding on motorcycle and going from Sepur to Parsad, as soon as they reached at Bhur Ghati (Chchani) Parsaad, one Bolero no. GJ-1-HL 5251 being driven by its Driver i.e. R 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle and thereby causing fatal injuries to deceased Dinesh and grievous injuries to Shanti Lal.

(2) Whether Insurance Company in view of the preliminary objections and reply on merits can be relieved from its liability, if no, its effect.

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the amount claimed or any other just amount, if yes, then how much amount and from whom.

(4) Relief. “

2.4 On appraisal of record, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,40,880 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application in favour of respondents No.1 to 4 (legal representatives of Dinesh deceased victim of the accident) to be paid by the appellant – Insurance Company.

3. In claim petition filed by Shanti Lal which arose out of the same accident, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,70,744 for Shanti Lal’s injuries (fracture of femur and dislocation of clavicle), covering medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, and other non-pecuniary damages.

3.1 The appellant has not challenged the award of compensation in favour of Shanti Lal. The instant appeal is directed only against the award of compensation by the learned Tribunal in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 (legal representatives of Dinesh deceased victim of the accident).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Tribunal has erred both in law and on facts while passing the impugned award dated 11.04.2018 awarding compensation in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4. The findings are contrary to the evidence on record and the settled legal principles, including Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,