IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the insurance company is liable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the importance of just compensation for victims.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

The judgement is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion :

I. INTRODUCTION

2. This first appeal from order arises from the judgment and award dated 5.3.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 171 of 2010 (Smt. Nirmala Devi and others v. Ramdev Shukla and others), partly allowing the claim made by the claimants.

3. The first appeal from order has been filed by the Insurance Company contesting the liability to pay the compensation and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

II. Case of the claimants and the respondents before the learned Tribunal:

4. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased-Rajesh Kumar was serving a constable in Border Security Force. On the fateful day of 6.5.2010, he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 30-M-1588 when tractor trolley laden with sand bearing Registration No. UP27-C-2688 collided with the said motorcycle. The accident was caused by solely rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor trolley. The deceased sustained died of injuries sustained in the said accident. On the date of the accident the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. The claimants were dependants of the deceased. The deceased was 39 years of age at the time of the accident.

III. Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal:

5. The learned tribunal found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor trolley. The insurance company was liable to pay the compensation.

6. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 5.3.2012 awarded compensation depicted in a tabulated form hereunder :

IV. Submissions of learned counsels for parties:

7. Shri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the accident never occurred. This is a false claim. Secondly, the liability was that of the tractor owner since there was a breach of the Insurance policy. Thirdly the compensation was wrongly awarded.

8. Shri Vipul Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supports the findings affirming the liability of the insurance company and has raised an oral cross objection to the effect that the future prospects to which the claimants were undisputedly entitled have been unlawfully denied by the learned trial Court.

9. Per cont