The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'no fault' liability under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.

1. These two appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 22.05.2012 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (for short, the Tribunal) in a claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) involving death of one Mushtaq Ahmed (for short, the deceased), who died in a road traffic accident on 06.03.2008. The appeal in CIMA No. 424/2012 has been filed by the Insurance Company, whereas that in CIMA No. 232/2012 has been filed by two of the claimants (father and sister of the deceased) to whom compensation has not been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

CIMA No. 424/2012:

2. In the claim application filed by the claimants against the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle, it was, briefly, contended that on 06.03.2008 the deceased was driving the offending Tipper bearing registration No. JK 14-A 2110, which went out of his control. The deceased died on spot. It was contended also that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The income of the deceased was stated as Rs. 7000/- per month. The claim application was filed by six persons comprising of the parents of the deceased, his two sisters, wife and a minor daughter.

3. The owner of the offending Tipper, who was respondent No. 2 in the claim application, in his reply before the Tribunal admitted the claim. The insurer of the offending Tipper, herein appellant, however, contested the claim on various grounds. Learned Tribunal framed following issues:

1. Whether deceased Mushtaq Ahmed S/o. Mohd. Sharief R/o. Sangaldan while driving vehicle No. JK 14-A/2110 (Tipper) owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 1, died in a Road Traffic Accident on 06.03.2008 at Sangaldan, when the vehicle went out of his control? (OPP)

2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased Mushtaq Ahmed under Motor Vehicle Act and if so, to what extent? (OPP)

3. Whether the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation in view of the compensation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? (OPR)

4. Relief?

4. The learned Tribunal after holding inquiry in the claim application, in which inter-alia the evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the claimants was recorded, held that Issue No. 1 was proved in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal further held that income of the deceased was not more than Rs. 3000/- per month and, while taking his annual income as Rs. 36,000/- and deducting 1/3rd of his income towards his personal and living expenses, applied multiplier of 15, taking the age of the deceased as 25 years, and awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency. In addition, Rs. 5000/- each were awarded for funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Learned Tribunal held also that only the wife and the minor child of the deceased were entitled to receive the compensation. Learned Tribunal, thus, awarded Rs. 3,70,000/- as compensation to respondents 5 & 6 with 7% per annum interest to be shared by both of them equally.

5. The appellant (insurer) has challenged the impugned judgment and award on two grounds. Firstly, that a claim under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable when the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the victim and secondly, that claim under Section 163-A is not maintainable when the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs. 40,000/-. It is worthwhile to underline here that both these grounds were taken by the appellant in its reply before the Tribunal also but the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, as is evident from the impugned judgment and award, seems to have rushed through to pass the award, it may be said, in a perfunctory manner, without realizing the importance of addressing the important questions of law raised on behalf of the appellant. Be that as it may, both these ob