Point of Law : In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for insurance company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 02.09.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 560 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs.9,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% as compensation, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act).

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The facts as they are collated go to show that the deceased was having a permanent job. The Tribunal unfortunately did not compute the income, multiplier, had granted Rs.9,500/-. The Tribunal has held that the wife of the deceased Hasim Ali died and son of the deceased Kasim Ali is the sole claimant, he is major and married person, the learned Tribunal held that Kasim Ali was not dependant on the deceased and has held no amount under other heads could be granted and has misread the judgment and the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant is entitled only for the loss of estate. These findings are assailed on the ground that the provisions of Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 and that the judgment of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mangey Ram and others, (2019) 0 Supreme (All) 1067 and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Urmila Shukla decided by the Apex Court on 6.8.2021 as far as compensation to be paid is concerned has to be applied for grant of compensation. The Apex Court has held that the claimants even if they are major sons their rights would not be diminished. The right in a motor accidents claim case arise on the date the accident occurs, the subsequent happenings will not bring an end to the right of the legal heirs. The widow being the first legal heir would be entitled to receive compensation as per the M.V. Act.

5. It is submitted that the order is perverse and against the well settled principles of law. The learned Tribunal has misread the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in which he has placed reliance. The term dependent has not found place in the Act. For computing compensation legal representative has to be seen whether son is dependent on the father or not has no relevance.

6. The counsel for respondent has stated that no fault can be found as with the decision of Tribunal, the sole surviving claimant is not dependant on the deceased. The case of contributory negligence is rightly decided as the Car was being driven by the deceased, which hit the tanker for which site plan was believed by the Tribunal and finding him negligent does not need interference.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, issue of negligence be considered from the perspective of the law laid down.

8. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa loquitur" meaning thereby "the things speak for itself" would apply.

9. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or author of the accident wo