The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the concept of 'Act of God' in the context of a road accident, and the determination of compensation based on the deceased's income, age, and dependents.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment & award dated 12.09.2007 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, District Ghaziabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.232 of 2005 (Smt. Praveen Rawat and Others Vs. Anuroop Singh and another), whereby the learned Tribunal has denied the compensation for the death of Dinesh Kumar Singh Rawat in a road accident, holding the accident to be the result of ''Act of God', and awarded only Rs.50,000/- for no fault liability.

2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of quantum of compensation.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for seeking the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Dinesh Kumar Singh Rawat (deceased) in a road accident with the averments that on 28.12.2004 at about 7:00 PM the deceased was traveling from Lucknow to Lakhimpurkhiri in car bearing no. U.P. 32 X 3366. The driver of the car was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligenlty and at a very high speed, all of sudden, a blue bull (Neelgay) came on the way. The driver tried to save the blue bull and in that process dashed the car into the tree. After dashing into the tree, the car overturned. In this accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on way to the hospital for treatment.

4. It is also averred that the age of the deceased was 38 years and he was working as Senior Engineer (Technical) in a private company namely, Aircel (HUTCH). Owner and Insurance Company of the aforesaid vehicle filed their respective written statements. Learned Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to coming a blue bull on the way suddenly, which was not the fault of the driver and accident had taken place due to Act of God. Consequently, the claim was denied and only Rs.50,000/- was awarded for no fault liability.

5. Aggrieved mainly with the non grant of compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act awarded, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that impugned judgment and award is against the law. Learned Tribunal has held that the driver of the car was not negligent but this finding is erroneous because if the vehicle would have been driven with proper care and caution, the accident could have been avoided. Learned Tribunal has adopted incorrect approach, because the vehicle was not being driven at a normal speed. In fact, the driver lost the control on staring and the vehicle dashed into the tree.

8. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that at the place of accident, the road was not plain and it was having pits, hence, in such a situation, the driver should have controlled the speed but he failed to do so, which reflects that car was being driven at an excessive speed. It is next submitted that two eye witnesses of the accident were produced, who were not relied upon by the learned Tribunal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently objected the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and submitted that appellants brought the case before the learned Tribunal with the fact that on way to Lakhimpurkhiri, a blue bull came on the road suddenly and to save it, car dashed into the tree and overturned but the alleged eye witnesses have deposed that car was being driven at a very high speed and it tried to overtake a tempo and in this overtaking, the car dashed into the tree. Hence, these two contradictory versions put by the appellants before the learned Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the insurance company