Point of law: Grant of compensation under Section 163-A of Act on basis of structured formula is in nature of a final award and adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of driver/owner of vehicle(s) involved in accident.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajesh Trivedi representing the claimants-opposite party nos. 1 to 6.

2. The present First Appeal From Order has been filed by the defendant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act’) against the award dated 25.2.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 431 of 2012 Ram Kali vs. Executive Engineer (Aasthai Yantrik Khand (Temporary Mechanical Division), Lok Nirman Vibhag, District Agra).

3. The facts of the case are that respondent/opposite party nos. 1 to 6 filed a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Act alleging that Ram Asrey died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Registration No. U.P. 80A 9846) by its driver. The defendant-appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was not impleaded as a defendant in the claim petition. A First Information Report regarding the aforesaid incident was also filed and Case Crime No.124/2012 under Section 279/304-A I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the vehicle.

4. The respondent/opposite party no. 1 is the wife of the deceased Ram Asrey while the respondent/opposite party nos. 2 to 6 are the sons of the deceased Ram Asrey. In their claim petition, the respondent/opposite parties claimed a compensation of Rs.10,66,000.00 alleging that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/-per month at the time of his death.

5. The Tribunal issued summons to the defendant-appellant on 4.9.2012 by registered post with acknowledgment due but the acknowledgments were not received by the Court by 10.10.2012 and therefore, the Tribunal declared that the summons had been duly served on the appellant/defendant. The defendant-appellant did not put in appearance in the case and no written statement was filed by it till 22.10.2012. Consequently, by order dated 22.10.2012, the Tribunal passed an order to proceed ex-parte against the appellant-defendant.

6. In the claim-petition, the opposite party no. 1 appeared as plaintiff-witness no.1 to prove her case regarding the accident. The Post-mortem Report, the First Information Report registering Case Crime No.124 of 2012, the spot inspection report prepared by the Police during investigation and the charge sheet submitted by the Police against the driver of the offending vehicle were also filed as evidence to prove the case of the claimant. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, held that as the claim-petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, therefore, the negligence of the driver in causing the accident was not required to be proved and the claimants-opposite parties were entitled to compensation from the defendant-appellant as it was proved from the oral and documentary evidence on record that Ram Asrey had died due to an accident arising out of the use of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal determined the compensation on minimum wages payable to a daily wage labour, i.e., Rs.3000/-per month and after holding that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was between 35 to 40 years, applied a multiplier of 16 to determine the total compensation payable to the claimants-opposite parties. The Tribunal by its award dated 25.2.2013 determined the compensation payable to the claimants-opposite parties as Rs.3,93,500.00 with six percent simple interest from the date of filing the claim petition.

7. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the award dated 25.2.2013 has been passed without serving notice to the appellant and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the claim-petition was not maintainable because the driver of the offending vehicle had not been impleaded as a defendant in the said case. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

8. Rebutting the argument of the