The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in determining the liability for a motor vehicle accident and the computation of compensation.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, where through, it, casts a challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., upon, Claim Petition bearing RBT MACP No. 32-K/II/14/2013, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.20,91,528/-, and, along with interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from, the date of petition, till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contested (i) the returning, of, affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1, by the learned Tribunal, issue whereof, appertains, to the relevant mishap being, a, sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No.6 herein, one Munish Rai. In sequel to the afore mishap, one Sansar Chand met his end, factum whereof, stands, echoed, in, postmortem report, borne in Ex.PW5/A. The afore submission addressed before this Court, is, entirely surmisal (ii) as the only eye witness to the occurrence, who stepped into the witness box, for, lending proof qua the relevant mishap, being a sequel of rash and negligent manner, of, driving of the offending motorcycle, by respondent No.6 herein, rather, in his deposition, comprised in his examination-in-chief, hence making clear bespeakings, qua respondent No.6 herein, while being atop, on, the offending motorcycle, his driving it in a rash, and, negligent manner, (iii) and, without his adequately ensuring that the deceased, who was, at the relevant stage, attempting to cross the other side, of, the road, hence not colliding, with the afore motorcycle, whereon he was atop, (iv) rather striking his person, hence, leading to his falling onto the road, (v) and, in sequel whereof, fatal injuries, stood entailed, upon, his person. The afore evidence of PW-2, borne in his examination-in-chief, stood, not concerted, to be repulsed, by the learned counsel for the insurer, by his meteing apposite suggestions to him, while his holding him, for crossexamination, (vi) suggestions whereof stood comprised, in theirs holding echoings qua his being not an ocular witness, to the occurrence, (vii) nor suggestions stood meted to him, that given the sudden appearance thereat, of, the deceased, rather respondent No.6 herein, hence his being disabled, to, appropriately maneuver the motorcycle, and, hence, it colliding against the deceased, (viii) nor his meteing any apposite suggestion to him, qua, respondent No.6 herein, not, being negligent in driving, the, offending vehicle. The absence of meteing, of, afore suggestion(s), by the learned counsel for the insurer, while holding PW-2 to cross-examination, and, conspicuously rather when a suggestion, in, the affirmative stood put to him, by the counsel, for the insurer, while holding him, to, cross-examination, with candid disclosures, therein, qua the road, at the relevant site hence being straight, (ix) thereupon, it is to be firmly concluded that, respondent No.6 herein, had a reasonable opportunity, to, sight the arrival of the deceased, onto the road, and, also could hence mete adherence, to the standards of due care, and, caution by rather slowing down the speed of the motor cycle, and, also by applying brakes thereof, whereas, he visibly omitted, to do so. Furthermore, an affirmative suggestion, stood meted, to PW-2, qua that, there being no zebra crossing, on the road, at the relevant site, and, whereon rather the deceased could take, to, trudge, whereto, also alike reply, stood evinced, (x) and, wherefrom, also it could be garnered that in the deceased, trudging elsewhere, his rather not adhering to the standards of due care, and, caution, and, also his hence contributing to the accident. Contrarily, the, meteing, of, the afore su