JUDGMENT 1. - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in short insurance company) has filed these two appeals (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 340 and 341 of 2012) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 23.11.2011 passed by Judge, Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Jaipur City Jaipur (in short MACT) in Claim Cases Nos. 566/1999 and 567/1999 whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants was allowed and they were awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,10,000 and 2,25,000/- respectively. It will be proper for this Court to decide these appeals by this common order. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.1.1998 " 13- iz0lq0fj0 izn'kZ 1 nq?kZVuk ds rRdky ckn vKkr okgu ds fo:) ntZ dh xbZ gSA bl iz0lq0fj0 ij iqfyl Fkkuk czkgkziqjh }kjk tkap dh xbZ rks tkap ds nkSjku ryk'k okgu fd;k x;k rks vkj0ts0 14 lh 8053 ek:fr oSu dk gksuk ik;k x;k] ftl ij ek:fr oSu dks tCr dj c;kukr xokg fy;s x;s rFkk /kkj 279] 304&, Hkk0na0la0 o 134@187 ,e0oh0 ,DV o f[kykQ Jh fd'ku yky lkSuh iq= Jh cuokjh yky lksuh ds fo:) izn'kZ 2 vkjksi i= is'k fd;k x;k uD'kk ekSdk inz'kZ 3 ds vk/kkj ij Hkh chfer okgu }kjk nkfguh rjQ 33 o 30 QqV txg NksM+dj ekdZ ,Dl0 o ,Dl0 11 ij nq?kZVuk dkfjr fd;k tkuk Li"V gksrk gSA & pwafd izkFkhZx.k dh mijksDr lk{; ds [k.Mu esa vizkFkhZzx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA ;gkWa rd vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 okgu pkyd Hkh lk{; esa mifLFkr ugha gqvk gSA vr% ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2005 vk0,0vkj0 260 jkt0 us'kuy ba';ksjsUl dEiuh fy0 cuke Jherh :de.kh nsoh o vU; esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij Hkh chfer okgu dk nq?kZVuk esa fyIr gksuk izdV gksrk gSA " at about 11.30 p.m. Kumari Sunita alongwith Harli Devi were returning back after attending some function, while they were crossing the road at Jalmahal were hit by Maruti Van No. RJ 14 I C 8053. In the accident Kumari Sunita and Harli Devi sustained serious injuries and died. It was stated in the claim petitions that Maruti Van was being driven rashly and negligently by defendant No. 1. In the accident Kumari Sunita and Harli Devi sustained serious injuries and died. It was stated in the claim petitions that Maruti Van was being driven rashly and negligently by defendant No. 1. The claim petitions were filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against, owner, driver and insurance company of Maruti Van. The defendant No. 1 did not appear despite service, hence ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him vide order dated 13.7.1999. The defendant No. 2 did not submit its reply, therefore his defence was strike out. The appellant insurance company submitted its reply stating therein that FIR of accident suggests that no accident took place with the alleged vehicle, involvement of insured vehicle was denied. It was further pleaded that driver was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. Liability of payment of compensation was denied. The MACT after recording the evidence of parties has decided the claim petitions by award dated 16.10.1999 whereby claim petitions were dismissed and it was held that claimants were failed to prove accident with the van. The award dated 16.10.1999 was challenged before this Court by claimants in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 80/2000. This Court vide order dated 15.3.2011 remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in the light of the judgment reported in 2005 RAR 260 Raj NIC v. Rukmani Devi and judgment dated 18.2.2011 passed in SLP(C) No. 11974/2008 Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors. The claim petitions were decided as mentioned above awarding the compensation to the claimants. 4. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has argued that the Tribunal has committed serious error in awarding compensation to the claimants in the light of the judgment reported in 2008 RAR 386 (Raj.) Rajasthan Malti v. N.K. Basu, it was ignored by the MACT that the accident took place in the year 1999 and the aforesaid judgment came to existence in the year 2008, therefore, the judgment is not applicable in the instant matter. The MACT has committed serious error in awarding interest @ 6% per annum from 15.3.1999. The award of interest is on higher side. The MACT has failed to appreciate that FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle. Even then the police concluded its investigation by filing challan against the driver. The MACT has committed serious error in awarding interest @ 6% per annum from 15.3.1999. The award of interest is on higher side. The MACT has failed to appreciate that FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle. Even then the police concluded its investigation by filing challan against the driver. Merely submissions of charge sheet against the driver is not sufficient enough to hold driver of the vehicle liable for accident or involvement of the vehicle in the said accident. The learned counsel has further argued that Ram Kumar Meena (AW. 1) and Ramniwas (AW. 2) were not the eye witnesses of the accident. It was completely ignored by the MACT that Ram Kumar Meena has stated in his evidence that he went to Thela of Ramjilal Meena for having Bidi/Cigarette after 11/2 months of the accident and registration number of maruti van was suggested by him. But AW. 2 Ramniwas has accepted in his cross examination that he was informed about accident after two months. The evidence of both these witnesses is contradictory. 5. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has argued that the MACT has considered the evidence and the documents produced by the claimants and the judgments cited by the counsel. The compensation was rightly awarded to the claimants. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the claimant-appellants. The MACT passed the common award dated 23.11.2011 after hearing the counsel for all the parties including the appellant. The driver of the Maruti Van was rightly held negligent in driving the said vehicle on account of which the accident took place. The MACT in detail after considering the evidence on record decided the issues in favour of the claimants. On the basis of the principle laid down in 2005 RAR 260 (Raj.) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmania Devi & Ors., and MACT 2011 (SC) 46 : 2011 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 385 Ravi v. Badri Narain & Ors., the MACT decided the issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 and held as under. 7. In relations to issues 1 and 2 the MACT held as under:Thus it is clear that the MACT has considered the principles laid down in the above ruling and decided the issues 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. 8. 7. In relations to issues 1 and 2 the MACT held as under:Thus it is clear that the MACT has considered the principles laid down in the above ruling and decided the issues 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. 8. In relation to issue No. 3 the MACT categorically held that Maruti Van was insured with the insurance company for the period from 25.4.98 to 24.4.1999 vide Ex. P. 8 and the accident took place on 28.1.1999. In this manner the issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondent No. 3. 9. In relation to issue No. 4 in claim Case No. 566/99, on account of death of Kumari Sunita on the basis of principles laid down in 2008 RAR 386 (Raj.) Malati v. M.K. Vasu, on account of death of Sunita who was aged 12 years and seven months, the father and mother were awarded Rs. 2,25,000/-. In this manner the compensation awarded to the claimants in this claim petition cannot be said to be perverse. 10. In relation to issue No. 4 in claim case No. 567/99 on account of death of Harli, who was aged 40 years (age group of 40-45), she was class IV in the office of Deputy chief Medical Health Officer at Jaipur and was drawing Rs. 4500/- per month as per Ex. P. 13 and in this manner the income of the deceased was computed to be Rs. 4144 per month and yearly income was computed to be Rs. 49,728/- and after deducting one third Rs. 33,152 were computed as yearly income to be incurred by her on his family. The multiplier of 15 was applied. In this manner Rs. 4,97,280 were computed as dependency income and for the loss of love and affection to son and daughter each Rs. 5,000/- total Rs. 10,000/- and for funeral Rs. 2720/- were awarded. In this manner total Rs. 5,10,000 were awarded to the claimants as compensation. 11. Looking to the evidence available on record the MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased persons. 12. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The common award passed by the MACT is just and proper and no interference is called for in the award passed by the MACT. 12. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The common award passed by the MACT is just and proper and no interference is called for in the award passed by the MACT. The appeals filed by the insurance company being devoid of merit stand rejected. 13. With the above observations the Misc. appeals stand rejected.. The stay applications also stands rejected. The compensation may be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with the common award.Appeals rejected. *******