JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.1- the owner of the vehicle in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard exparte against the respondent no.1.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chatra in Claim Case No.23 of 2007 by which the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- to the claimants to be paid by the owner of the vehicle.

4. The brief facts of the case is that when the deceased Ranjit Bhuiyan aged about 20 years on 08.02.2007 was going by a tractor as a labourer, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor, the said tractor turned turtle causing injuries to the deceased and he succumbed to the M.A. No. 12 of 2013 said injuries. It is stated that the deceased was earning monthly income of Rs.3,100/-. The insurance company opposed the claim for compensation on various technical grounds and claimed that the deceased was travelling in the tractor as a gratuitous passenger hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- and applied the multiplier 16.

5. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal settled the following six issues:-

(i) Is the claim petition maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether Ranjit Bhuiyan died due to injuries caused in the accident by tractor bearing registration no. BR-26-3084 which occurred on 08.02.2007 at 11:00 A.M. at Dulariya bridge P.S. Pratappur, District- Chatra?

(iii) Was the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the said tractor?

(iv) Whether the tractor bearing registration no. BR-26- 3084 was insured with O.P. No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident and owned by O.P. No.1?

(v) Whether there was any breach of condition of policy?

(vi) Are the claimants entitled for compensation?

6. The learned Tribunal first took up issue nos. ii and iii together and came to the conclusion that the deceased- Ranjit Bhuiyan died due to the accident by the offending tractor which was rashly and negligently driven by its driver and decided the issue nos. ii and iii in favour of the claimants. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal took up issue no. i and iv and held that the claim application is maintainable and the offending vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.2- insurance company. Lastly, the learned Tribunal took up issue nos. v and vi and held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and directed the opposite party no.1- owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation amount.

7. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the appellants have agitated several grounds in this appeal memo but the appellants confine their prayer for enhancement of compensation on the following grounds only while abandoning the rest of the grounds:-

(i) In view of the principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680 paragraph no.59 of which reads as under :-

“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusion:

59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2. As Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (201