The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation in cases of road traffic accidents, as per the principles of natural justice and the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Heard Mr. A. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T. Rajendro Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 filed by the respondent No. 1(who shall hereafter be referred to as appellant) in the Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1 of 2014 of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Bishnupur against the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 27.01.2015 wherein the respondents in this case (claimants in the claim case) were awarded a sum of Rs. 19,57,676/- (Rupees nineteen lakh fifty seven thousand six hundred and seventy six) only for the death of Shri RK. Sanjoysana Singh in the accident caused by the vehicle (Tata Tipper bearing registration No. MN 01 8197) owned by the appellant on 04.08.2012 on the approach road of C.I. College near Konung Lairembi Gate, Bishnupur. The appellant has challenged the award on the grounds which are given verbatim here under :

(i) That, the decision arrived at by the Ld. Tribunal is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice as the present appellant/respondent has not been given enough opportunity himself.

(ii) That, the impugned judgment and order was passed by proceeding ex parte even without examining a single defence witness which is against the established principle of natural justice.

(iii) That, the learned Tribunal ought to have given further opportunity so as to enable the respondent to give his defence witnesses. However, this opportunity has not been made available to the present appellant, therefore the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2015 is bad in the eyes of law.

(iv) That, the settlement/agreement has already been entered between the owner of the vehicle and the members of the bereaved family in connection with the death of husband of the claimants by offering a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand) as second installment. This agreement and understanding between the parties has not been considered to its fullest interpretation and learned Tribunal had taken a different view in adjusting the said amount to the claim amount in the claim petition made by the claimant.

(v) That, had the learned Tribunal afforded the opportunity of defending the case of the appellant, the amount awarded in the impugned judgment and order could have been effectively bargain or, at least reduced at the time of disposal of the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the judgment and order is also bad in the eyes of law.

(vi) That, the present appellant is not in the position to make such an exorbitant amount as a compensation to the claimant and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered this difficulty being faced by the present appellant at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order.

(vii) That, the learned Tribunal ought not to have shown much leniency towards the claimant at the cost of so much inconvenience on the part of the present appellant. This aspect has also not been considered by the learned Tribunal.

(viii) That, no mechanical report was produced before the learned Claims Tribunal at the time of the adjudication of the claim and also no evidence was taken to establish the fact that there was mechanical error/defect in the vehicle. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal thereby fixing the liability to the present appellant is also deserved to be interfered with. Since the impugned judgment and order suffers from perversity and as such the same is liable to be interfered with.

(ix) That, the learned Tribunal also ought to have examined the most vital witness in the present case i.e. the driver of the vehicle also the Regd. Owner of the vehicle to arrive at a right decision. However, this was not done by the Tribunal therefore impugned judgment and order is also bad in the eyes of law.

(x) That, the ratio of compensation to be borne by the respondents i.e. the registered owner of the vehicle and