Court emphasized equitable compensation determination principles, ensuring proper income assessment and mutual benefits for all dependents of deceased, ultimately enhancing the compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Sec. 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dtd. 3/5/2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3, West Tripura Judicial District, Agartala in TS (MAC) No. 260 of 2012.

2. The case, in brief is that, on 6/2/2012 at about 7 O' clock in the evening, the deceased who is the son of appellant No.1, husband of appellant No.2 and father of appellants No. 3 and 4 was walking along the Assam Agartala road at a place called Howaibari within the jurisdiction of Teliamura police station. At that time the offending Maruti Van bearing registration No.TR-03-C-0569 came in a rash and negligent manner and knocked him down from behind. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was hospitalized. He was admitted in A.G.M.C and G.B.P Hospital at Agartala where he was confined to bed for about three months from 6/2/2012 to 4/5/2012. During the period, he had undergone multiple surgeries. After his discharge from hospital, the District Disability Medical Board certified that he suffered from 85% permanent locomotor disability. He filed a claim petition at the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 under Sec. 166 M.V. Act. During the pendency of his claim petition, he succumbed to his injuries on 12/6/2014. As a result of the death of the claimant, his mother, wife and his minor daughter and son were impleaded as claimants.

3. After the accident, wife of the deceased lodged FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Teliamura Police Station on 4/5/2012 which was registered as Teliamura P.S Case No.50 of 2021 under Ss. 279 and 338 IPC and the case was investigated by the police. Before the injured died, police submitted final report for want of evidence. Concluding part of the final report of the investigating officer is as under:

"Hence I do not think wise to drag the matter pending for more. Hence I do hereby submit Final Report, vide TLM PS FR No.17/12 dtd.31/8/12 u/s 279/338 IPC. The fact is true but wanting evidence in C/w the case. With a view to the case may be re-opened if the evidence comes in near future and thus obliged.

4. While contesting the claim at the Tribunal the insurance company (respondent No.2) took up usual defence stating that the claim was exorbitant and the onus of proving the claim was strictly put on the claimants.

5. Respondent No.3, owner of the offending vehicle, also claimed that the claim of compensation was exorbitant which was not even supported by any document. The respondent also pleaded that actual owner of the vehicle on the date of occurrence was Smti. Tripti (respondent No.1) because he purchased the vehicle from Smt. Tripti Paul on 20/3/2012 and on 6/2/2012 when the accident occurred Tripti Paul (respondent No.1) was the owner of the vehicle. The respondent therefore, denied his liability.

6. Said Smt. Tripti Paul who was impleaded as respondent No.1 at the Tribunal. Notice of the case was issued to her but she did not file any written response. In this regard, the tribunal had made the following observation in paragraph-4 of its award.

"4. Initially the OP NO. 1 Smt Tripti Paul appeared before this Tribunal by executing one Vokalatnama in favour of Mr.Pramod Sahu, learned Advocate and by filing petition prayed for time to present her written statement but ultimately, the OP NO. 1 did not cooperate with her engaged learned counsel for which on 2/6/2015 Mr. P. Sahu, learned Advocate filed one petition expressing his intention to retire from this case and ultimately the said petition was accepted by this Tribunal vide order dtd. 13/7/2015.