The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of negligence, contributory negligence, and composite negligence principles in motor accident cases, and the need for new strategies and remedies to address the increasing number of motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants; Shri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Insurance company; none appeared for the owner. Perused the record

2. These appeals are preferred both by claimants and also by Insurance company, F.A.F.O. No.2356 of 2013 is at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Mau (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.195 of 2010 awarding a sum of Rs.4,64,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. F.A.F.O. No.2391 of 2013 is preferred by Insurance company challenging the award on following grounds;

(a) It is challenged that the award is bad as the tribunal has erred on facts. It is alleged that the accident did not involve, the vehicle insured namely Tata Mazic bearing Registration No. UP 54 D 2561.

(b) It is further submitted that the death of Subhash Chandra was not due to the accidental injuries and the driver of Tata Magic was not driving the vehicle negligently;

(c) It is submitted that the driver driving, Tata Magic was not having proper driving licence.

(d) It is further alleged that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle on which the deceased was allegedly travelling at the time of the alleged accident.

(e) It is further submitted that the deceased was not a third party and, therefore, there was no liability which was cast on the insurance company;

(f) It is further averred that there is liability to pay compensation could not be fastened on the appellate side.

(g) It is further submitted that presence of PW 2 and PW 3 was completely doubtful at the place and time of the alleged accident and their evidence were completely untrustworthy.

(h) It is alleged that there was a major unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. It is further alleged that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective.

(i) It is submitted by learned counsel for Insurance Company that the findings recorded by the learned tribunal on issue no.1 was erroneous, perverse and based on assumptions and irrelevant considerations.

(j) It is further submitted that it was not established from the evidence on record that the driver of the motorcycle on which deceased was allegedly travelling at the time of alleged accident was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident

(k) It is further submitted that the alleged photo copy of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle Tata Magic in question was inadmissible in evidence.

(l) It is submitted that the tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and acted illegally in considering the said alleged photo copy of the driving licence in question while deciding issue no.3; it is also stated that it was not established from the evidence on record that the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective fitness certificate and a valid permit at the time of the alleged accident; it is submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue no.3 are illegal, perverse and based on irrelevant considerations.

(m) It is further submitted that the employment and the income of the deceased is doubtfull. The Tribunal acted illegally in not appreciating the said aspect of the matter, and in assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month.

(n) It is further submitted that tribunal acted illegally in deducing only 1/4th of the alleged income of the deceased towards personal expenses.

(o) It is alleged that tribunal acted illegally in awarding interest of 6% per annum to the claimants/respondents.

(p) It is averred that the multiplier adopted by the learned tribunal was on higher side and was erroneous.

(q) It is submitted that the learned tribunal acted illegally on assumptions and in a perverse manner in awarding Rs.9,500 for non pecuniary damages.

4. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mam