Point of Law : Accident claim – Compensation – Deceased of 32 years old - A multiplier of 16 is to be applied while quantifying the total pecuniary damages payable to the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1988') against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 1, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 9 of 2005 (Shyamu & Others Vs. Rashid Ahamad & Others).

2. In view of the office report dated 2.1.2019 service of notice on the defendants-respondents is deemed sufficient. Nobody has appeared for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Ajai Singh, Advocate, appeared for opposite party No. 3 and was heard in opposition to the present appeal.

3. The appellants instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 9 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs. 8,48,000/-from the defendants-opposite parties for death of Smt. Rama Devi. The claim petition was filed in December, 2004. Appellant No. 1 is the husband of Smt. Rama Devi and appellant Nos. 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters of Smt. Rama Devi. Appellant Nos. 2 to 7 were minor at the time of death of Smt. Rama Devi. It is alleged in the claim petition that on 11.10.2004, Smt. Rama Devi was going with Radhey Shyam (brother of appellant No. 1) to purchase medicine for her son-appellant No. 7. Smt. Rama Devi was sitting on the back-carrier of the bicycle of Radhey Shyam. It is alleged that a truck bearing Registration No. U.P. 31 E 0242 (hereinafter referred to as, 'offending vehicle') hit the bicycle, as a result of which Smt. Rama Devi fell down and suffered injuries causing her death. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. In the claim petition the age of the deceased is stated to be 32 years. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a household helper and earned Rs. 6,000/-per month. It is stated that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur, i.e., opposite party No. 3. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear in the Tribunal and did not file their written statement, therefore, proceedings were held ex-parte against them. Opposite party No. 3 filed its written statement denying the accident as well as the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in causing the accident and also contested the amount of compensation sought by the claimants-appellants. It appears from the records, that the Insurance Company also filed an application under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 praying for permission to contest the claim on grounds available against the owner and driver of the vehicle.

5. It is relevant to note that a First Information Report registering Case Crime No. 1240 of 2004, under Sections 279, 338 and 304A I.P.C. was registered against opposite party No. 2, the driver of the vehicle, at the instance of Ramu, brother of appellant No. 1. In the aforesaid Case Crime No. 1240 of 2004, charge-sheet was filed against opposite party No. 2. Radhey Shyam, referred above, has been named as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet.

6. The Tribunal framed four issues. Issue No. 1 was as to whether the accident which took place on 10.11.2004 killing Smt. Rama Devi was because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Issue No. 2 was as to whether the offending vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 3. Issue No. 3 was as to whether at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving license. Issue No. 4 was as to whether the claimants were entitled to any compensation and the defendant liable to pay compensation.

7. Before the Tribunal, the claimants filed a copy of the first information report, the postmortem report of Smt. Rama Devi, copy of the charge-sheet, inquest