The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the presence of the Insurance Company's counsel in court proceedings, as the absence of counsel led to the dismissal of the applications filed by the Insurance Company.

ALOK SINGH, J.

1. The facts and questions of law in both the appeal are common, therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellant – Insurance Company is aggrieved by the orders dated 19.08.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in MACT Case No. 20 of 2014 and MACT No. 125 of 2013 whereby learned MACT was pleased to dismiss the applications filed by the Insurance Company for setting aside ex parte decree against the Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved, appellant – insurance company has approached this Court.

3. The learned Tribunal has passed the detailed and reasoned orders in both the cases. In MACT Case No. 125 of 2013, the Tribunal has categorically recorded that apart from Ms. Anjali Gusain, Ms. Poonam Rane and Ms. Hemlata, Advocates were also engaged by Insurance Company and despite giving sufficient opportunity, none appeared on behalf of Insurance Company. It was further observed by the Tribunal that Ms. Anjali Gusain pleaded that there was marriage in her family but she failed to produce any evidence. In MACT Case No. 20 of 2014, the Tribunal has recorded that counsel for the Insurance was absent on several dates. Earlier, an ex parte order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal was recalled with costs of Rs. 400/- but again counsel for the Insurance Company remained absent. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders dated 19.08.2014 passed by the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 02.07.2003 deceased Rajesh Kumar along with one Pramod and Mohit (aged about 12 years) were going on scooter. Nazim driving a truck bearing UMU 4728 rashly and negligently dashed the scooter of Rajesh Kumar, as a result, scooter riders received injuries; Rajesh Kumar succumbed to his injuries. This incident was witnessed by PW3 – Gyan Singh. PW3 – Gyan Singh has categorically stated that Rajesh Kumar was driving the scooter slowly whereas Nazim was driving the truck rashly and negligently and dashed the scooter of Rajesh Singh. It has also come on record that at the time of incident, Nazim was having valid driving license issued by Saharanpur Authorities. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of Rajesh Kumar @ Rs. 10,000/- on the basis material available on record. During the course of trial, the Insurance Company had not produced any evidence in order to prove that it may be a case of contributory negligence. Age of the deceased was about 35 years and the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- each for mental agony, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate and towards cremation expenses. Overall, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 14,90,000/- to the dependents of Rajesh Kumar, which in my opinion, is appropriate compensation.

5. So far second appeal is concerned filed against the judgment passed by the Tribunal against compensation granted to injured Mohit. In my opinion, the Tribunal, considering all the aspects, awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards mental pain, Rs. 30,000/- towards physical pain and Rs. 6000/- towards loss of income, as Mohit was advised to take two months bed rest. Admittedly, when accident occurred and Mohit received injuries, then he must have gone to the hospital for his treatment. Mohit failed to prove medical bills, therefore, such compensation was awarded. I do not find any illegality in it and this compensation is not on higher side.

6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or perversity in both the judgments passed in MACP Nos. 245 and 246 of 2008. Consequently, both appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company along with interest & statutory amount, if any, in both the cases, (adjusting the amount withdrawal by the claimants), be remitted to the MACT concerned within three weeks from today. Thereafter, MACT concerned shall release the amount in favour