Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, ACJ.—Both these appeals were heard analogously as the selfsame Award dated January 25, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.], Ahmedabad [hereafter to be referred to as “the Tribunal”] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1130 of 2001 is the subject-matter of these two appeals, one filed at the instance of the Insurance Company and the other, at the instance of the claimants. 2. By the Award impugned herein, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,68,200/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-petition till realization, as well as, the proportionate costs of the petition. 3. First Appeal No. 5196 of 2007 has been filed by National Insurance Company against the aforesaid Award alleging that the claimants had no locus standi to maintain the application for compensation on the death of the victim, inasmuch as, the parents and the brother of the victim are not heirs and legal representatives of the deceased married Hindu lady in accordance with Hindu Succession Act, 1956 when her husband was alive. 4. In the other appeal being First Appeal No. 785 of 2008, the parents and the minor brother of the deceased victim have prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. The facts giving rise to filing of the claim-application may be summed up thus: 5.1 The deceased, viz. one Pooja Gopalchandra Mahatma, met with a vehicular accident on September 3, 2001 at about 10.00 pm when she was travelling as a pillion rider on a bullet motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-18A-1432, belonging to the Opponent No. 1 of the claim-application, on the National Highway No. 8. In the said accident, no other vehicle was involved but due to sudden application of brake by the driver, the victim had fallen down from the motorcycle and on sustaining severe injuries, she ultimately died. 5.2 The claimants, who are the father, mother and minor younger brother of the victim, claimed a sum of Rs. 43,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition on the ground that the victim was aged 24 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 25,000/- a month and was a highly qualified person being an account-expert. 43,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition on the ground that the victim was aged 24 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 25,000/- a month and was a highly qualified person being an account-expert. 5.3 According to the statement made in the claim-application, the victim was coming from Valsad to Baroda as a pillion rider with the Opponent No.1 of the claim-application and the said Opponent No.1 was driving the motorcycle in excessive speed when suddenly he had to apply his brake and consequently, lost control over the motorcycle. As a result, the victim had fallen down and sustained severe injuries resulting in death due to negligent driving of the motorcycle. 5.4 According to the claimants, the vehicle was owned by the Opponent No. 2, the mother of the Opponent No.1, and was insured with the Opponent No.3, the Insurance Company, who is the appellant in other appeal preferred before us. 5.5 In the claim-application it was however stated that the victim and the opponent were friends and known for the last five years. According to the claimants although the Police had shown a marriage certificate between the victim and the Opponent No. 1, the same was procured by the Opponent No. 1 for getting visa for Australia and United States of America and the Victim was never married to the Opponent No. 1. 6. The said claim-application was opposed by the Opponent No.3, the National Insurance Company, thereby alleging that the claimants were not entitled to maintain the application as they were not the heirs and legal representatives of the victim, Pooja, who was already married to the Opponent No.1. According to the Insurance Company, there was collusion between the claimants and the opponent and for that reason, leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also taken. 7. The Opponent No. 1 long after the filing of the claim-application filed a written statement thereby supporting the case of the claimants. So far as the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the claim-application regarding the marriage certificate the said opponent stated as follows: “With regard to facts mentioned in Para 18 (It must be 17) I have to state that I and Pooja were knowing each other and good friend also. So far as the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the claim-application regarding the marriage certificate the said opponent stated as follows: “With regard to facts mentioned in Para 18 (It must be 17) I have to state that I and Pooja were knowing each other and good friend also. Because of personal reasons we had only filled up the Marriage Registration form and had obtained Marriage Registration Certificate. Without performing marriage ceremonies according to Hindu Law (i.e. Sapta Padi before sacred fire). Under these circumstances I had said in my police complaint that she was my wife. In fact we had no physical relation. Now I realized that I am not legally married husband of deceased Pooja , hence I am not entitled to claim any compensation as an heir of Pooja. Only applicants are entitled for that.” 8. The learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was employed in Amtel Exports India as Marketing Analyst and was earning Rs. 10,000/- at the relevant point of time. Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the father being aged 59 years, the dependency period as per 2nd Schedule attached to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereafter to be referred to as “the Act”] was eight years and he was entitled to have the benefit of the multiplier of 8. As the monthly income of the victim was Rs. 10,000/- after deduction of 1/3rd of personal expenses and the amount came to Rs. 6700/-, which by multiplication of 12 came to Rs. 80,400/- and after application of multiplier of 8, the sum came to Rs. 6,42,200/-.The Tribunal further added Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation charge for bringing the dead body from Baroda to Ahmedabad and Rs. 10,000/- towards love and affection, she being bachelor and thus, the total amount came to Rs. 6,68,200/-. The Tribunal below, however, turned down the plea of the Insurance Company that the victim was already married by simply relying upon the statement in the written statement of the Opponent No. 1 that he did not marry Pooja notwithstanding the fact that the said Opponent No. 1 did not appear in the proceedings to give evidence. 9. Mr. 6,68,200/-. The Tribunal below, however, turned down the plea of the Insurance Company that the victim was already married by simply relying upon the statement in the written statement of the Opponent No. 1 that he did not marry Pooja notwithstanding the fact that the said Opponent No. 1 did not appear in the proceedings to give evidence. 9. Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, has strenuously contended before us that the Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact that the victim, Pooja, was already married to the Opponent No.1 as would appear not only from the marriage certificate produced by the Insurance Company, but also from the post-mortem report as well as death certificate where the victim was described to be the wife of the Opponent No.1 According to Mr. Mehta, if the FIR and the death certificate is the foundation of the claim, those should be relied in full and thus, the parents and the sister of the victim could not claim that a part of the statement made in the FIR was correct and part contained wrong statement as regards the identity of the victim and her marital status. Mr. Mehta, further points out that four days after filing of the present claim-application, the said Opponent No.1 also filed a separate claim-application by asserting himself to be the husband of the victim and her sole heir and legal representative. It appears that the said claim-application was proceeded with till the year 2006 when ultimately, the Opponent No.1 for the reason not known to him decided to withdraw the claim-application. Mr. Mehta submits that the Insurance Company, however, had relied upon the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages between the victim and the Opponent No.1 which was filed in the claim-application filed by the Opponent No. 1 and had also produced the application for withdrawal of the claim-application filed by the Opponent No.1 against the Insurance Company. Mr. Mehta, therefore, prays for setting aside of the Award solely on the ground that the claimants were not heirs and legal representatives on the basis of the statements made in the FIR and postmortem report and that the admission made by the Opponent No. 1 was not binding upon the Insurance Company. 10. Mr. Mr. Mehta, therefore, prays for setting aside of the Award solely on the ground that the claimants were not heirs and legal representatives on the basis of the statements made in the FIR and postmortem report and that the admission made by the Opponent No. 1 was not binding upon the Insurance Company. 10. Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Mehta and has submitted that the so-called marriage certificate is a zerox copy of the original and in the absence of the original marriage certificate, the same cannot be looked into. Mr. Gadhvi further contends that his client specifically disputed the factum of the marriage and asserted that the said marriage certificate was a procured one and therefore, the Tribunal rightly ignored the said document and awarded the compensation. Mr. Gadhvi, however, tried to impress upon us that the manner of fixation of the quantum of compensation was improper and there was no justification of applying the multiplier of only 8 in the facts of the present case. 11. Before entering into the question of quantum of compensation, we, first propose to deal with the question whether the claimants had proved by evidence that they were really the heirs and legal representatives of the victim according to Hindu Succession Act as Pooja admittedly was a Hindu governed by the said Act. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record we find that the Opponent No. 1 had filed a separate claim-application in respect of the selfsame accident by claiming to be the husband of the victim and the said application was proceeded with till 2006. In the FIR also, Pooja, the victim, was described as the wife of the Opponent No. 1 and the postmortem report describes Pooja as the wife of the Opponent No. 1. It further appears that the Insurance Company specifically took the plea that there was collusion between the claimants and the Opponent No. 1 and as such, leave under Section 170 of the Act was taken. The Xerox of copy of the marriage certificate produced by the Insurance Company was also marked as Exhibit. It further appears that the Insurance Company specifically took the plea that there was collusion between the claimants and the Opponent No. 1 and as such, leave under Section 170 of the Act was taken. The Xerox of copy of the marriage certificate produced by the Insurance Company was also marked as Exhibit. If Pooja was really married to the Opponent No. 1, the parents of the victim could not be entitled to maintain the application as they, in that event, would not be heirs of the victim according to the provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act. 13. The learned Tribunal below, as it appears from the award impugned, did not enter into the question of marriage of Pooja by appreciating any evidence on record but simply by relying upon the admission of the Opponent No. 1 in his written statement, came to the conclusion that there was no marriage between them. We find substance in the contention of Mr. Mehta that the admission made by the Opponent No. 1 was not binding upon his client as his client had alleged collusion between the Opponent No. 1 and the claimants and at the same time, had obtained leave under Section 170 of the Act. We cannot ignore the fact that the Opponent No. 1 himself claimed compensation on the basis of marriage certificate and in the FIR, he described Pooja as his wife in several places. 14. In such circumstances, it was the duty of the Opponent No. 1 to come in the witness box and explain the admission made by him in FIR and the claim-application filed by him and to offer himself for the cross-examination of the Insurance Company. 15. Thus, the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding against the Insurance Company by solely relying upon the admission of the Opponent No. 1 in the written statement that Pooja was not his wife notwithstanding the fact that no evidence was adduced to explain the contrary statement made by the Opponent No. 1 in his marriage certificate, FIR and in his own claim-application against the Insurance Company. 16. 16. We, therefore, set aside the award impugned and remand the matter to the Tribunal below for fresh decision on merit by giving all the parties opportunity to lead further evidence not only on the question of marriage but also on all the issues involved in the proceedings. Since the Opponent No. 1 is sailing in the same boat with the claimants, if the claimants want to rely upon the admission of the Opponent No.1 for the purpose of applying the same against the Insurance Company, the latter must get opportunity to cross-examine the Opponent No. 1 before the same is used against them. If the claimants decide not to examine the Opponent No. 1 as their witness, they will not be entitled to rely upon his admission but must rebut the presumption arising out of the marriage certificate by giving appropriate evidence. We also give opportunity to the Insurance Company to prove the original marriage certificate by calling for the original marriage-register and to show that the signature of the victim appearing thereon tallied with the one appearing in the passport of the victim which has been already marked as exhibit in this case, if they so desire. Similarly the claimants are also at liberty to take step to prove that the signature of the victim on the marriage certificate was not her signature or that the marriage-certificate was procured by the Opponent No.1 for the purpose of getting visa. 17. Since the Tribunal below disposed of the proceedings in a slipshod manner without deciding the issue of marriage of the victim which was very vital issue and we intend to reopen the matter by giving opportunity to the parties to give evidence in detail, we propose to give a further chance to the parties to give evidence also on all other issues. 18. The Tribunal below is directed to dispose of the matter on all issues after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and will decide all the issues afresh based on evidence already on record along with further evidence that will be adduced by the parties. 19. Both the appeals are, thus, disposed of by setting aside the award and passing the order of remand as indicated above. The Tribunal below is directed to refund the amount deposited by the Insurance Company within two months from today. 19. Both the appeals are, thus, disposed of by setting aside the award and passing the order of remand as indicated above. The Tribunal below is directed to refund the amount deposited by the Insurance Company within two months from today. There will be, however, no order as to the costs. P P P P P