Compensation determination must reflect actual earnings and dependents' needs, ensuring fair and just assessments under the MV Act.

1. This appeal under S.173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act'), is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.5.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents 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 was the son of appellant No. 1, husband of appellant No. 2 and father of appellant Nos. 3 and 4, was walking along 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 hospitalised. 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 per cent permanent locomotor disability. He filed a claim petition at the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 under S.166, MV 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 F.I.R. 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 S.279 and S.338, Indian Penal Code 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 it is wise to drag the matter pending for more. Hence I do hereby submit final report, vide TLM PS FR No. 17/12 dated 31.8.2012 under S.279/338, IPC. The fact is true but wanting evidence in connection with 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 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 Tripti Paul (respondent No. 1) because he purchased the vehicle from 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 Tripti Paul 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 para 4 of its award:
"(4) Initially the OP No. 1 Tripti Paul appeared before this Tribunal by executing one Vakalatnama 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