Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) BY this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988'), the appellant Insurance Company has challenged the Award dated 16th of December 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur (for short, 'Tribunal'). By the award impugned, the learned Tribunal has adjudicated the claim of the respondent -claimants under Section 166 of the Act pertaining to death of their kith and kin, and while deciding the issues framed in favour of respondent -claimants, has fastened liability to pay the awarded amount of compensation Rs. 4,00,000/ - on appellant as well as other non -claimant -applicants jointly and severally.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case are that respondent -claimants laid a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,86,000/ -, inter -alia, on the ground that on the fateful day of 8th January 2010 at about 11 AM, when deceased Adarsh was playing outside shop by the side of road, Jeep No. GJ -17 -C -1698 driven rashly and negligently in a very high speed by its driver & owner respondent Gautamlal Garasiya dashed him, which caused grave and serious injuries to the deceased on his head and various parts of body, and he succumbed to the injuries. The incident was reported at police station and thereupon FIR was registered. After investigation, chargesheet under Section 279, 304A IPC was filed against non -claimant respondent No. 3 Gautam Lal, the driver and owner of the offending Jeep. The respondent claimants have attributed total negligence on the part of the driver & owner of the jeep and pleaded that life of deceased Adarsh was shortened due to this tragedy when he was hardly six years old. For quantifying the compensation, respondent -claimants relied on imaginary income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/ - per month notionally as per Second Schedule under Section 163 of the Act of 1988. To support their case, the respondent -claimants relied on various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. Neither anybody appeared on behalf of driver and owner of the vehicle, nor reply to the claim petition was filed on his behalf despite service. The claim petition was contested by appellant Insurance Company and it submitted return in which the averments contained in the claim petition were denied. A specific plea was raised in the return by the appellant Insurance Company that the driver and owner of jeep was not having a legal and valid driving licence.
(3.) AFTER framing of issues by the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties, on behalf of respondent -claimants, father of the deceased AW1 Ramlal appeared who testified on oath and produced 9 documents. In counter, no evidence was adduced by the non -claimants including appellant Insurance Company.;