The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the financial loss suffered by the dependants due to the death or disablement of the victim.

J.P. Singh, J.

Cross appeal (C) No. 57/2003

Cross Appeal (C) No. 86/2003

1. M/s Devinder Nagpal, Kewal Nagpal, Geeta Nagpal and Anju Nagpal commenced their journey from Jammu to Amritsar on January 19, 1997, by Maruti Car No. JK02D-5449. The Car, however, met with an accident at about 8.30.a.m near village Ghagwal, on the National Highway, when it was hit by a Bus bearing registration No. JKS-9535, which was coming from the opposite direction. All the occupants of the car sustained injuries as a result of the accident. They were taken to Military Hospital, Samba for first aid and thereafter to Government 2 Medical College Hospital, Jammu for treatment. The injured, who were in serious condition, were airlifted to Delhi for better treatment. Devinder Nagpal succumbed to the injuries on 6.2.1997 in the Hospital, at Delhi.

2. Despite best efforts of the Doctors, Kewal Nagpal could not recover from the injuries and was rendered 100% disabled as a result of grievous injuries to the spinal cord.

3. Smt. Geeta Nagpal, the widow, Sheetal Nagpal, the daughter, Master Ritin Nagpal, the minor son, S.R. Nagpal, the father and Smt. Bimla Devi, the mother, of deceased Devinder Nagpal, lodged a Claim for Rs. 4,19,000,00/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as compensation for Devinder Nagpal's death, with the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu, which was registered as Claim Petition No. 486/Claim of 1998.

4. Kewal Nagpal too approached the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal seeking Rs. 3,88,14,000/- as compensation for the injuries received in the accident and the permanent disablement caused thereby. His Claim Petition was registered as Claim Petition No. 493/Claim of 1998.

5. Both the Claim Petitions were contested by the National Insurance Company Limited, with which the offending Bus stood insured at the time of the accident.

6. The Driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not respond to the Claim Petitions despite service, and were, therefore, set ex-parte.

7. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues in the two Claim Petitions:

Claim Petition No. 486/Claim:

1. Whether deceased Devinder Nagpal died as a result of a road accident on 19.1.97 involving the offending vehicle No. JKS 9535 because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No. 1 and that in the same accident Petitioners Geeta Nagpal, Anju Nagpal and Kewal Nagpal sustained serious /multiple injuries? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation Petitioners are entitled to? OPP

3. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, Respondent No. 3 is not bound to indemnify the owner? OPR-3

4. Whether the Respondent No. 1 did not possess a valid driving licence and therefore, Respondent No. 3 is not bound to indemnify the owner? OPR-3

5. Relief.

Claim Petition No. 493/Claim:

1 Whether accident involving death of Devinder Kumar and injuries to Geeta Nagpal, Anju Nagpal and Kewal Nagpal has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. JKS-9535 by its driver? OPP

2 In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, what is the amount of compensation payable to the Petitioners and by whom? OPP

3 Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and its effect? OPR-3

4 Relief.

Both the Claim Petitions were clubbed together for trial, allowing liberty to the claimants to produce their respective evidence in support of their Claims.

8. The claimants produced M/s Anju Nagpal, Kewal Nagpal, Pardeep Nagpal, Rajan Nagpal, Senthel Kumar, Dr. A. N. Jha, 4 Dr. Rajesh Gandotra, Naresh Kapai, Chartered Accountant, Vikram Khurana, Brij Sharma, Parhlad Sharma, Sushil Kumar, Sunil Moza, Badri Nath, Record Keeper, Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu and Geeta Nagpal as their witnesses to support their respective Claims.

9. The National Insurance Company opted not to