Appellate courts exercise broad powers in motor accident cases to ensure just compensation, even without cross-appeals, by rectifying errors in quantum calculation based on established income standards and evidence-based assessment of liability and contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The captioned appeals have been preferred at the instance of the Insurance Company- original opponent No.3 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1988”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Valsad in MACP Nos.40 and 41 of 2006 respectively. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition being MACP No.40 of 2006 preferred by the original claimants who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased being expired in the motor vehicle accident under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding them entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs.13,81,000/- is to be realized from the original opponents jointly and severally with 7.5% interest and proportionate cost, whereas in MACP No.41 of 2006, the Tribunal has held the original claimants entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs.6,25,000/- from the original opponents Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% and proportionate cost, whereas has dismissed the claim petition for the original opponents No.5 and 6. Hence, the captioned appeals at the instance of original opponent No.3- Insurance Company mainly disputing the quantum of compensation and the issue of liability.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present appeals, it would be appropriate to revisit the facts of the case. On 20th January 2006, the deceased Kiran Kumar (MACP No.40 of 2006) was sitting as pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ 15 KK 5472 which was driven by deceased Bhikhubhai Tandel (MACP No.41 of 2006). While they were passing on a highway road leading from Dandi towards Khaparwada, their bike had dashed the left rear back side of the truck moving ahead bearing registration No.GRY 4319 resulting into an accident. Because of the impact, both the motorcyclists have succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. The cause of action arose for the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. The claimants which include the wife of deceased Kiranbhai and their children and aged parents have preferred claim petition which was registered as MACP No.40 of 2006 before the District Court at Valsad seeking compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under the various heads with interest and proportionate cost. The said claim petition was preferred against the driver of the truck (original opponent No.1), the owner of the truck (original opponent No.2), the Insurance Company of the truck (opponent No.3), the owner of the motorcycle- original opponent no.5 and the Insurance Company of the motorcycle being joined as opponent No.6. The heirs and legal representatives of the owner of the motorcycle have preferred claim petition which was registered as MACP No.41 of 2006 before the concerned Court praying for compensation of Rs.15 lakhs with proportionate cost and interest against the original opponents as stated above except for the owner of the motorcycle who had expired in the accident. Before the Claims Tribunal, the summons were reported to have been duly served upon the aforesaid opponents. Despite service of summons, the driver and owner of the respective vehicles have chosen not to file any written statement. The opponent No.3 -Insurance Company has submitted its written statement at Exhibit 23, whereas the Insurance Company of the motorcycle -opponent No.6 has submitted its written statement at Exhibit 27. Before the claim Tribunal, the opponent No.3- Insurance Company has raised specific defence disputing the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation as prayed for. The specific defence was also raised with regard to the liability of Insurance Company to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants on the ground that the driver of the alleged truck involved in the accident was not holding any valid and effective drivi