The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in granting compensation, emphasizing the welfare nature of the legislation and the relaxed rules of evidence and procedure in such cases.

JUDGMENT

H.S.MADAAN, J. - Under challenge in this appeal is award dtd. 4/4/2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) vide which claim petition bearing MACT Case No.99 of 2013 under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by claimants Smt.Gorika Sahdev and others on account of death of Sh. Rahul Sahdev in a motor vehicular accident had been dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that three other claim petitions were also filed on behalf of other claimants, which were also dismissed vide the same award.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Smt.Gorika Sahdev, aged about 26 years - widow, Smt.Veena Sahdev, aged 58 years - mother, Sh.Sushil Kumar, aged about 66 years - father and Ms.Aaina - minor daughter of Sh.Rahul Sahdev, all residents of House No.255, Ground Floor, Indraprasth Colony, Sector 30-33, Faridabad had brought a claim petition bearing MACT Case No.99 of 2013 under the Act against Honey Matta - driver (since dead, now being represented by his mother Smt.Neelam and father - Sh.Surender Kumar), Sh.Nitin Sharma - owner (since deceased now represented through Sh.Ram Sarup Sharma - father, Smt.Chander Prabha Sharma - mother) as well as against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. - insurer of the car bearing registration No.DL-8-CU-5746 (hereinafter referred to as the offending car), claiming compensation on account of death of Rahul Sahdev.

3. As per the version of the claimants on 2/9/2013 at about 6:00 a.m., deceased Rahul Sahdev, Ananya, Aradhya along with Neeti Sharma and Madhav as well as Nitin Sharma were travelling in the car bearing registration No.DL-8-CU-5746; they were going from Ludhiana to Delhi; the car was being driven by respondent No.1 - Honey Matta at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner; after crossing Ganaur Flyover, the driver of the car lost his control over the car, resultantly the car struck against a small bridge in the area of village Teha, resulting in the occupants of the car suffering injuries; Rahul Sahdev and Honey Matta died on the spot, whereas, Ms.Ananya and Aradhya died on the way to hospital; the dead bodies of those four persons were taken to General Hospital, Sonepat; Sh.Nitin Sharma, Smt.Neeti Sharma and Madhav, who had sustained injuries were taken to Max Hospital, Delhi; an FIR No.329 dtd. 2/9/2013 for the offences under Ss. 279, 337, 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of unknown vehicle with Police Station Ganaur.

4. According to the petitioners, the accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent No.1 and even if the facts mentioned in the FIR are to be believed that the accident took place due to collision with the unknown vehicle, which had sped away after the accident, then also it is a case of composite negligence, since the deceased and the injured had no role to play in causing the accident.

5. According to the claimants deceased Rahul Sahdev was aged about 34 years at the time of his death in the mishap and he was earning Rs.82,187.00 per month by working as an Engineer with Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Noida (U.P.). They had claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 crores.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that other claim petitions i.e. MACT Case No.201 of 2014 and MACT Case No.200 of 2014 filed by claimant Smt.Neeti Sharma on account of suffering injuries in the accident and on account of death of her daughters Ananya and Aradhya and a separate claim petition bearing MACT Case No.202 of 2014 filed by claimant Madhav (minor) through her mother Smt.Neeti Sharma on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident had been filed arising out of the same accident. All the claim petitions were taken up together by the Tribunal for the purpose of trial and passing award.

7. Notice of the claim petitions in question was given to the respondents. Respondent No.1 and 2 had expired and had been sued through their LRs and notices were sent