DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI,J. - (1.) The instant appeal for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimant-appellants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 29.8.2011 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur (in short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.125/2009 titled Smt. Kali Devi and Ors. v. Dholaram and Ors , whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,18,480/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.
(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.1.2009, Mewaram (the deceased) was going to Khori from his village on the motorcycle of Kanaram. At about 5:00 PM, when Mewaram reached near toll plaza Manoharpur, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who was driving truck No.RJ-14-2G-4762 and collided the truck with the motorcycle from back side. Due to the accident, Mewaram died at the spot. For the aforesaid accident, First Information Report No.21/2009 came to be registered at Police Station Manoharpur and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.1 holding him negligent. At the relevant time, the truck was owned by respondent No.2 and the same was insured with respondent No.3. The claimants, who are wife, children, parents and brothers of the deceased, have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs. 45,14,552/-. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased-Mewaram was posted as Beldar in PWD, District Sub-Division, Jaipur (North) at the time of his death and he was earning Rs. 10,206/- per month. The deceased Mewaram was 40 years of age at that time. It was further averred that due to his sudden death, the appellants have been pushed to great mental agony and same will be for their whole life.
(3.) Despite service, the non-claimant/respondents No.1 and 2 did not choose to appear before the learned Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings have been initiated against them. The non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto and denied material averments of the petition, stating therein that at the time of accident, the aforesaid vehicle was being driven without valid and effective permit, and the FIR was registered with delay of 16 hours, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against it.;