The court reaffirmed the necessity of a uniform multiplier method for calculating motor accident compensation, rejecting both the split multiplier method and claims of inflated dependency assessments.

Judgment :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant– Insurance Company under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, against the award dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, in Claim Case No. 36/2019. By the said award, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants–respondents No.1 to 5 and awarded a compensation of Rs.66,38,800/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The award was passed jointly and severally against the appellant–Insurance Company and non-claimant respondent No.6.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the claim petition are that the claimants–respondents No.1 to 5 (wife, three major children, and mother of the deceased) filed the claim under Sections 166 and 140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, on account of the death of Vinod Kumar in a road accident that occurred on 05.12.2018.

It was averred that on the said date, the deceased Vinod Kumar was returning to his village Khudila from Dholpur on a motorcycle. At about 6:30 PM, near Diholi Shramdan turn on the Dholpur–Rajakhera road, a tractor bearing registration No. UP-83- AC-9843, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with his motorcycle. As a result, Vinod Kumar sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

An FIR bearing No.165/2018 was lodged at Police Station Dholpur. Upon investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending tractor.

At the time of the accident, the deceased was 58 years old and employed as a Lab Assistant in the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, drawing a monthly income of Rs.75,000/-.

3. In response to the claim petition, the non-claimant respondent No.6 (registered owner of the tractor) filed a written statement, denying the occurrence of the accident with his vehicle. It was further pleaded that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant–Insurance Company, and therefore, any liability arising from the accident was to be borne by the insurer.

4. The appellant–Insurance Company also filed its written statement, specifically denying the allegations in the claim petition. It was contended that the tractor had been falsely implicated in the accident to claim illegal compensation. It was further pleaded that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the principles of contributory and composite negligence were attracted. The insurer prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

The appellant–Insurance Company moved an application under Section 170 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, which was allowed. Consequently, the insurer was permitted to contest the claim petition on all grounds available to the owner and driver of the vehicle.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and recorded evidence. On behalf of the claimants, AW-1 Smt. Munni and AW-2 Rajesh Sharma were examined, and documentary evidence marked as Exhibits 1 to 19 was produced. On behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company, NAW-1 Gaurav Sharma was examined, and documentary evidence Exhibits NA-1 to NA-7 (including NA-6 and NA-7 repeated) was submitted.

6. After appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Tribunal, vide award dated 18.11.2019, decided all the issues against the appellant and respondent No.6, and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.66,38,800/- with interest @ 9