The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence and legal precedents to determine the occurrence of the accident, assessment of compensation, and principles regarding dependency and consortium compensation.

ORDER :

This appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by appellant-ICIC Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Company”) being aggrieved by award dated 02.8.2022 passed by 16th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.1530/2020 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation on account of death of deceased-Kishore Vishwakarma in motor accident which allegedly took place on 05.8.2020.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 to 5 who are claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,26,00,000/- for the death of deceased-Kishore Vishwakarma who is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 & 3 and son of respondents No.4 & 5. The claimants averred that on the fateful day the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle when offending vehicle bearing registration No.MP-04/CU-1377 which was owned and driven by respondent No.6 (Rakesh Singh Kushwaha) allegedly in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased who fell down from bike and sustained fatal injuries and could not survive and consequently passed away.

3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and denied the averments made in claim petition and pleaded that he had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and vehicle was insured, therefore, he is not liable to make payment of amount compensation.

4. The present appellant/Insurance Company contested the matter before the Tribunal and denied the allegations made in claim petition and further pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not having effective driving licence and no information of accident was given to the Insurance Company. So, it be exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation.

5. The Tribunal after framing issues and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the rival parties awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.15,98,500/- under different heads alongwith interest.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred instant appeal on the grounds that offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident in question. The amount awarded is on higher side and needs to be suitably reduced.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that Tribunal has not appreciated the objections raised and documents on record in right perspective and the impugned award is contrary to the facts available on record. He further submitted that offending vehicle has been implicated in the matter to get the compensation. In the absence of any reliable eye witness to the accident and also the fact that claimant had failed to establish the negligence on the part of the driver the claim petition was not maintainable. He also raised an objection that quantum of award passed by the Tribunal is shockingly on higher side and deserves to be modified. He further submitted that respondents/claimants No.2 & 3 are major sons and are not entitled for compensation. They cannot be treated to be dependent of the deceased. The dependency ought to have been reduced two-third (2/3) in place of three-fourth (3/4) in terms of decision in the case of Sarla Verma and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,200/- per month, when there is no evidence in this regard. It ought to have been as Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal also erred in granting of 25% towards future prospects. The deceased was 50 years of age and hence, according to decision in the case of Pranay Sethi, towards future prospects only 10% would be applicable. So the Insurance Company prayed for setting aside impugned award or in the alternatively to reduce the same.

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of