Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2062 (ALL)

Rinki Devi v. Jamuna Prasad

2019-09-05

VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This first appeal from order has been preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short M.V.Act), against the award and order dated 31.8.2017, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Shahjahanpur, (in short 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 172 of 2016 (Smt. Rinki Devi and others Vs. Jamuna Prasad and others), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants (in short claimants) has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts, arising out of this appeal, are that the deceased Raj Pal s/o Natthu Lal, husband of claimant No.1, Smt. Rinki Devi r/o village Ram Nagar Colony South, P.S Katra Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, was going on 22.3.2016, at 3.00. p.m. from his house to Katra Bazar. When he was passing through Mohalla Ram Nagar Colony on Jalalabad road, a Maruti WagonR Car No. U.P.-74-K 8724, which was being driven by respondent No.2, Man Singh, rash and negligently, dashed him from back, whereby severe injuries were caused on his head and legs. Deceased Raj Pal was carried to Siddh Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly for treatment. First Information Report (in short F.I.R) was lodged on 29.3.2016 by the claimant No.1, Smt. Rinki Devi, but during treatment the deceased died on 31.3.2016 due to injuries caused in the said accident. 3. A claim petition, for compensation of Rs.24,90,000/, was filed by the claimants against respondent-owner No.1, Jamuna Prasad, respondent No.2, driver Man Singh and respondent No.3, National Insurance Company-Insurer of the aforesaid car before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence produced by the claimants, dismissed the claim petition vide aforesaid award and order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned award and order, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for claimants submits that the alleged accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 of vehicle WagonR Car No. U.P.-74-K 8724, wherein deceased Raj Pal received severe injuries and died later on, during treatment on 31.3.2016. Place of accident lies between headquarters of both districts Shahjahanpur and Bareilly. Deceased was admitted in Siddh Vinayak Hospital Bareilly for better treatment. Place of accident lies between headquarters of both districts Shahjahanpur and Bareilly. Deceased was admitted in Siddh Vinayak Hospital Bareilly for better treatment. The Tribunal, without applying its judicial mind, improperly and illegally assessed the evidence on record, produced by both the parties, whereas involvement of alleged vehicle has been proved not only by oral evidence of P.W-1 Rinki Devi, P.W-2 Rishi Pal, but also proved by documentary evidence i.e F.I.R, charge sheet, site plan and the bill voucher of medical treatment. The impugned award and order is based on surmises and conjencture which is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (owner and driver) and learned counsel for respondent No. 3 (Insurer) have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the alleged injuries due to which the deceased died, had not been caused in any accident caused by the driver of the alleged vehicle Maruti WagonR Car No. U.P.-74-K 8724; deceased had received injury in any other occurrence/incident at unknown place; he had been admitted in hospital situated at Bareilly which is more than 70-80 kilometers away from the place of accident as alleged by the claimants and F.I.R was lodged after 8 days of the accident. It has further been submitted that P.W-1 Rinki Devi is not an eye witness, P.W-2 Rishi Pal is not the resident of the nearby place of the occurrence; he is brother-in-law of the deceased; his presence, all of a sudden, at the place of occurrence is not natural, and his evidence has also not been supported and corroborated by other evidence available on record. It has also further been submitted by the learned counsels that independent witness, whose presence has been shown in the F.I.R and is the resident to the nearby place of the accident, has not been produced by the claimant, the impugned order is legal and requires no interference. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels of both the parties and perused the record. 8. Section 168, Section 169 and Section 176 of M.V. Act provides a procedure for determination of just compensation. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels of both the parties and perused the record. 8. Section 168, Section 169 and Section 176 of M.V. Act provides a procedure for determination of just compensation. According to Section 168 of M.V. Act, for determination of compensation, the Tribunal is required to hold an inquiry into the claim, section 169 provides that in holding such inquiry, the Claim Tribunal shall follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit, whereas Section 176 empowers the State Government to make rules. Sections 168, 169 and 176 are reproduced as under: “168. Award of the Claims Tribunal - (1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of sections of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or person or person to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award. (3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct. 169. (3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct. 169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals- (1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purposes of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.” 176. Power of State Government to make rules. – A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications; (b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter; (c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal; (d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and (e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed. 9. State Government, in exercise of power conferred under section 176 MV Act, has framed the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (in short Rules). 9. State Government, in exercise of power conferred under section 176 MV Act, has framed the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (in short Rules). Rule 203A, and 203C read with Rule 211A are relevant at this juncture, which declare the presumption of certain document prepared by Investigating Officer. These rules are as follows : Rule 203-A. Duties of investigating Police Officer – (1) The investigating Police Officer shall prepare a site plan, drawn on scale as to indicate the layout and width etc. of the road/roads or place as the case may be, the position of Vehicle/Vehicles, or persons involved and such other facts as the case may be relevant, authenticated by the witnesses and in case no witness is available same shall be recorded, so as to preserve the evidence relating to accident. He shall also get the scene of accident photographed from such angles as to clearly depict the accident, as above, inter alia for the purposes of proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. (2) The investigating Police Officer shall get full particulars of the Insurance Certificate/Policy in respect of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, and to require the production of documents mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 158, and thereupon either to take the same in possession against receipt, or to retain the photocopies of the same, after attestation thereof by the person producing them. (3) The investigating Police Officer may verify the genuineness of the documents gathered under sub-rule (2) by obtaining confirmation in writing from the authority purporting to have issued the same. (4) The investigating Police Officer shall submit detailed report regarding the accident to the Claims Tribunal, alongwith site plan and photographs prepared under sub-rule (1), documents gathered and verified under sub-rules (2) and (3) or action taken in case of documents found forged, copies of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, medico legal reports and postmortem report (in case of death), First Information Report, by not later than fifteen days of receipt of order/requisition issued by the Claims Tribunal: Provided that such information may also be furnished to the Insurance Company if requested by or through its agent or by the injured/sufferer or next of the kin or legal representatives of the deceased of the accident. The investigating Police Officer shall submit report under this rule to the Claims Tribunal in Form SR 48-A. (5) Duties of investigating Police Officer, enumerated in sub-rules (1) to (3) shall be construed as if they are included in Section 23 of U.P. Police Act, 1861 and any break thereof, shall entail consequences envisaged in that law. Rule 203-C. Duties of Registering Authority – (1) The registering authority of motor vehicles and licensing authority, issuing driving license, shall submit a report or issue a certificate relating to verification of registration and other documents with complete details and of driving license of the driver of the vehicle involved in accident when directed by the Tribunal or asked by the Insurance Company. (2) The Registering Authority of motor vehicles and licensing authority shall also provide information mentioned in sub-rule (1) to the person/persons who wishes or have filed petitions for compensation or who is involved in an accident or his next of kin, or to the legal representative of the deceased as the case may be. Rule 211A “The reports, certificates and papers submitted or issued under Rules 203A, 203C and 203D shall be presumed to be correct and shall be read in evidence without formal proof, unless proved contrary.” 10. Since the proceeding for determination of compensation is an inquiry, the principle of law applicable in criminal trial as well as civil suit is not applicable in such proceeding. It should also be kept in mind that after causing accident, driver of vehicle makes every effort to flee from the place of occurrence, leaving the injured in critical condition. In such situation passers-by or onlookers come forward to help. They also try to chase the offending vehicle and to note its registration number, as well as make efforts to catch the driver of the offending vehicle and disclose the same to claimant/informant or person available on spot. It has been seen that in some cases, in order to avoid to attend the Court proceeding or further inquiry made by Police, eye witnesses do not come forward to disclose their names. In addition to above, Rules framed by Government clearly provides that F.I.R and certain documents prepared by Investigating Officer of the accident for ex. site plan, photograph of place of occurrence shall be read without formal proof unless proved contrary. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. Vs. In addition to above, Rules framed by Government clearly provides that F.I.R and certain documents prepared by Investigating Officer of the accident for ex. site plan, photograph of place of occurrence shall be read without formal proof unless proved contrary. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC), holding that Tribunal is duty-bound to be vigilant that due to technicalities of procedural law, the innocent victim do not suffer, has held as under:- “Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving.” 12. In Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 (13) SCC 530 , Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the nature of evidence required for proof of accident and determination of compensation before the Tribunal, has held as under:- 14. “Some discrepancies in the evidences of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3.” 15''. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.” 13. In Kusum Lata Vs. Satbir, 2011 ACJ 926 (SC), the Supreme Court while holding the nature of evidence required before Trial Court, again has held as under :- “8. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have refused to accept the presence of Dheeraj Kumar as his name was not disclosed in the FIR by the brother of the victim. This Court is unable to appreciate the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal and the High Court. This Court is of the opinion that when a person is seeing that his brother, being knocked down by a speeding vehicle, was suffering in pain and was in need of immediate medical attention, that person is obviously under a traumatic condition. His first attempt will be to take his brother to a hospital or to a doctor. It is but natural for such a person not to be conscious of the presence of any person in the vicinity especially when Dheeraj did not stop at the spot after the accident and gave a chase to the offending vehicle. Under such mental strain if the brother of the victim forgot to take down the number of the offending vehicle it was also not unnatural. 9. There is no reason why the Tribunal and the High Court would ignore the otherwise reliable evidence of Dheeraj Kumar. In fact, no cogent reason has been assigned either by the Tribunal or by the High Court for discarding the evidence of Dheeraj Kumar. The so-called reason that as the name of Dheeraj Kumar was not mentioned in the FIR, so it was not possible for Dheeraj Kumar to see the incident, is not a proper assessment of the fact-situation in this case. The so-called reason that as the name of Dheeraj Kumar was not mentioned in the FIR, so it was not possible for Dheeraj Kumar to see the incident, is not a proper assessment of the fact-situation in this case. It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.” 14. In Bimala Devi Vs. Satbir Singh (2013) 14 SCC 345, the Supreme Court has again reminded the nature of proof, required in determining the compensation in claim petition and has held as under:- “10. In claim cases, it is difficult to get witnesses, much less eye witnesses, thus extremely strict proof of facts in accordance with provisions of the Evidence Act may not be adhered to religiously. Some amount of flexibility has to be given to those cases, but it may not be construed that a complete go by is to be given to the Evidence Act. 11. From the facts as unfolded hereinabove, it is clear that appellants have been callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter and did not do so in right earnest. We cannot take a pedantic view of the matter so as to shut the doors of justice to the appellants. The Motor Vehicles Act is social piece of legislation and has been enacted with the intent and object to facilitate the claimants/victims to get redress for the loss of loosing of family members or for injuries in an early date. In any case, money cannot be any substitute for it, but in the long run it may have something soothing effect. Thus, it is desirable to adopt a more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach in these matters.....” 15. Thus, it is also settled principle of law that the law relating to compensation, awarded due to motor accident, is beneficial legislation. Strict proof of evidence is not required to be applied either in determining the negligence of driver or involvement of offending vehicle. The standard of judging the evidence, required in accident claim case, is preponderance of probability. In such case, only prima facie evidence involving the alleged vehicle is required. 16. Strict proof of evidence is not required to be applied either in determining the negligence of driver or involvement of offending vehicle. The standard of judging the evidence, required in accident claim case, is preponderance of probability. In such case, only prima facie evidence involving the alleged vehicle is required. 16. Thus, it has to be seen whether, or not there is a prima facie evidence available on record, whereby it can be held that the alleged accident occurred on 22.3.2016 at 3.00 p.m, within the area of mohalla Ram Nagar colony, Jalalabad Road, P.S. Katra, District Shahjahanpur, wherein the deceased Raj Pal received severe injuries and died later on during treatment on 31.3.2016. 17. From perusal of the impugned award, it is clear that the learned Tribunal has not relied on sole testimony of eye witness of the accident, P.W-2 Rishi Pal, who is real brother-in-law of the deceased, because his presence at the place of accident was not natural; because according to him, the deceased was admitted by police in hospital and his statement was not supported by the police report; deceased was not admitted for treatment in any hospital in district Shahjahanpur; injury report, site plan of the accident and post mortem report were also not corroborating the version of P.W-2 Rishi Pal; because no antemortem injuries were found on the head of deceased. 18. It is settled principle of law that if the presence of eye witness at the place of occurrence is proved and his statement is reliable; delay in lodging F.I.R; any infirmity in police papers; even any defect in medical evidence; and also non production of other eye witnesses will be immaterial in evaluation of evidence of the said eye witness. 19. P.W-1 Rinki Devi is not an eye witness. P.W-2 Rishi Pal has been produced by the claimants as eye witness of the occurrence. Thus, it has to be seen whether, the presence of P.W-2 Rishi Pal at the place of accident is proved and his statement is trustworthy or not. He is resident of village Isura, P.S.Faridpur, District Bareilly whereas the alleged accident took place at mohalla Ram Nagar Colony, Jalalabad Road, police station Katra Bazar, District Shahjahanpur. He is real brother-in-law of the deceased Raj Pal. He is resident of village Isura, P.S.Faridpur, District Bareilly whereas the alleged accident took place at mohalla Ram Nagar Colony, Jalalabad Road, police station Katra Bazar, District Shahjahanpur. He is real brother-in-law of the deceased Raj Pal. According to him, at the time of accident he was going to the house of the deceased with mataka (ritual on eve of Holi festival). As he proceeded on foot from Katra Bazar crossing through Jalalabad Road towards his Sasural, reached two hundred meters away from the crossing, he saw that his brother-in-law (Sala) was coming on foot towards Katra crossing for marketing and as he was 50 meters away from him, a white colour Maruti WagonR Car No. U.P.-74-K 8724, driven by its driver, rash and negligently, dashed Raj Pal from back and fled away from the place of incident. In cross examination, he has admitted that at the place of incident, crowd had gathered and an unknown person called the police, thereafter the police reached there. He has further stated that the deceased was admitted by the police in hospital. He has also admitted that the alleged accident took place in front of house of Jai Narain. According to him the road, where the incident occurred, is north to south and accident took place to western side of the road. In cross examination, he stated that he had not carried the deceased Raj Pal to any hospital in Katra Bazar, but he has specifically stated that he had seen the registration number of the offending vehicle from the front and back side both. He further stated that deceased had been carried in Ambulance to Siddh Vinayak hospital, Bareilly by him along with police. P.W-1 Rinki Devi also stated that deceased had been admitted in hospital by police and P.W-2 , Rishi Pal. 20. In this case, F.I.R of the accident was lodged after 8-9 days of the accident wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the alleged accident was seen by one Viresh Kumar Mishra and Rishi Pal (P.W-2). 21. It is settled principle of law that only on the ground that the witnesses are relatives of the deceased or informant, their testimonies cannot be disbelieved. 21. It is settled principle of law that only on the ground that the witnesses are relatives of the deceased or informant, their testimonies cannot be disbelieved. If it is alleged by the opposite parties i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle it must be proved by cogent evidence regarding the non involvement of their vehicle, where it has been proved by claimants that death of deceased was caused by the offending vehicle. 22. Death information report was sent from Siddh Vinayak Hospital to Inspector P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, which shows that the deceased Raj Pal was admitted by a helping ambulance. This document has been filed by the claimants, wherein it has been mentioned that the deceased Raj Pal was admitted in hospital in unconscious condition on 22.3.2016 at 3.10 p.m. and he had died on 31.3.2016 at 6.00 p.m., due to severe injuries on the head and both legs of the deceased, caused in accident at Jalalabad Road. Although in the site plan of the occurrence, the presence of witness has not been shown but it is clear from the perusal of this document that alleged accident took place on western side of the road from back side of the deceased. In F.I.R, the registration no. of the aforesaid vehicle has been specifically mentioned and after investigation the charge sheet was also filed under sections 279, 338 and 304A I.P.C against respondent No.2, Man Singh, driver of the aforesaid car. 23. Neither P.W-2 , Rishi Pal, brother-in-law of deceased Raj Pal, nor P.W-1, Rinki Devi, wife of deceased, has stated that Siddh Vinayak Hospital is situated 70-80 kilometers away from the place of occurrence but the Tribunal has recorded this fact without any evidence of non applicants i.e. insurer, driver or owner on record that Bareilly is 70-80 kilometers away from the place of accident. 24. Shahjahanpur and Bareilly are adjoining districts. Neither P.W-1 , Rinki Devi nor P.W-2 Rishi Pal was cross examined by the insurance company before Tribunal as to why the deceased was taken away for treatment to Siddh Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly. Record shows that deceased Rajpal was in critical position at the time of accident. Thus, if the helping ambulance, on the advise of police, took away the deceased to Siddh Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly for better treatment and P.W-2 Rishi Pal did not resist, his evidence cannot be treated as unreliable. 25. Record shows that deceased Rajpal was in critical position at the time of accident. Thus, if the helping ambulance, on the advise of police, took away the deceased to Siddh Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly for better treatment and P.W-2 Rishi Pal did not resist, his evidence cannot be treated as unreliable. 25. In my view, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding non-reliability of evidence of P.W-2 Rishi Pal, on the ground, that police got the deceased admitted in hospital Bareilly or he had not admitted the deceased in any hospital in Shahjahanpur or the police had denied its role in getting the deceased admitted in hospital at Bareilly, is not justifiable in this accident claim petition because these irregularities or inconsistencies are either superficial or immaterial in the facts and circumstance of this case. 26. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence produced by the claimants because no injury report of deceased was produced and in postmortem report no antemortem injuries were found on the head of deceased whereas, according to Rishipal (P.W-2), head injuries were caused to deceased in the alleged accident. 27. From perusal of the record, it transpires that due to severe injuries, caused in the alleged accident, the condition of deceased Rajpal was critical at the time of accident, hence in my view if the deceased was not carried to any Government Hospital and no injury report was either prepared or filed before the Tribunal, it will not effect the veracity of evidence, produced by the claimants. 28. So far as the presence of antemoterm head injury in the postmortem report is concerned, from perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that three antemortem injuries have been noted in postmortem report wherein injury no.1 was stitched wound 2cm with 3cm and injury no.2 was stitched wound of 3 cm, both were on above right eye brow whereas injury no.3 was fracture in both legs. In addition to it, it has also been noted that haemotoma was present in the brain of the deceased and in column of opinion, regarding cause and manner of death, it has been specifically mentioned in the postmortem report that the death of deceased was caused due to antemotem head injury. In addition to it, it has also been noted that haemotoma was present in the brain of the deceased and in column of opinion, regarding cause and manner of death, it has been specifically mentioned in the postmortem report that the death of deceased was caused due to antemotem head injury. Thus, the finding of Tribunal that according to postmortem report no head injury was caused or injury report was not produced, is against the evidence available on record. 29. From perusal of the record, it further transpires that only copies of registration certificate, insurance policy of the offending vehicle and driving license of respondent No.2, Man Singh, were filed by the respondent-owner whereas only copy of accidental investigation report was filed by the Investigator of respondent-Insurance Company wherein Rs.69,808/- has been verified as expenses incurred in treatment of the deceased. In this report, no fact has been mentioned, which creates any doubt in the alleged accident caused by offending vehicle. No evidence has been produced by the respondent-owner, driver or insurer of the alleged vehicle to controvert the documentary and ocular evidence produced by the claimants. 30. In view of the above, I am of the view that the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No.U.P. 74-K-8724 on 22.3.2016 at 3.00 p.m., wherein the deceased Raj Pal received severe injuries and died on 31.3.2016 during treatment. The finding of learned Tribunal in this case is against the settled principle of law as well the evidence and material available on record. 31. So far as question regarding determination of compensation or liability to payment is concerned, in claim petition six dependents on the deceased have been shown. Appellant/claimant No.1 is wife of the deceased and other five claimants are the children of the deceased. Age of the deceased, at the time of accident has been shown as 40 years, which is also verified from the post mortem report as well as the death information report of the deceased available on record. Thus, for the purpose of determination the multiplier, age of deceased is determined between 40 years to 45 years. 32. In claim petition, monthly income of deceased has been alleged Rs.15,000/- per month and his profession has been shown as mason “Raj Mishtri” but no documentary proof has been submitted by the claimants in this regard. Thus, for the purpose of determination the multiplier, age of deceased is determined between 40 years to 45 years. 32. In claim petition, monthly income of deceased has been alleged Rs.15,000/- per month and his profession has been shown as mason “Raj Mishtri” but no documentary proof has been submitted by the claimants in this regard. P.W-1, Smt. Rinki Devi, wife of deceased, in her cross examination has stated that her husband used to do the job of labourer as mason but he did not get it regularly. Looking into the facts and circumstance of this case, as no documentary proof has been placed on record by the claimants, regarding the income of the deceased and deceased was an unskilled labourer belonging to rural area, his monthly income is assessed as Rs.3000/- ( three thousand) per month. 33. In addition to above, deceased was admitted for treatment in Siddh Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly on 22.3.2016 where his treatment was continued up to 31.3.2016 i.e. till his death. Various bill vouchers of amount spent on treatment of deceased, filed by claimants are available in lower court record. In claim petition, it has been specifically stated that Rs.1,00,000/- were spent on treatment of the deceased. The said bill vouchers have not been authentically proved by the claimants, but the same were verified by the respondent-insurer as transpires from the verification report of Investigator, appointed by the Insurer. In this report the bill voucher of Rs.69,808/- was verified and found genuine by the said Investigator. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- as medical expenses. 34. Law regarding determination of just compensation has now been settled by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein, Hon’ble Court while discussing the law in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 ; Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422 ; Rajesh Vs. Rajbeer Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 ; Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 347 ; UPSRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 ; National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422 ; Rajesh Vs. Rajbeer Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 ; Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 347 ; UPSRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 ; National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa (2015) 9 SCC 166 and various case laws relating to determination of just compensation, has settled down the law regarding various topics which are essential for determination of just compensation i.e. (a) deduction towards personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand; (b) selection of multiplier depending upon age of the deceased; (c) basis for applying multiplier as age of the deceased; (d) compensation permissible for conventional head for example loss of state, loss of consortium and funeral expenses; (e) addition of income as a future prospect for both whether the deceased was a permanent employee or self employed person. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held as follows: 59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: 59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 35. Thus it is clear that Hon’ble Supreme Court not only permitted for addition in the determined income/salary of the deceased whether he was self employed or a permanent employee, towards future prospect at the different rate according to age of deceased, but also approved the rate of deduction of personal and living expenses, and selection of multiplier as propounded in para 30 to 32 and para 42 of Sarla Verma case (supra). 36. In Sarla Verma (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 30 to 32 and para 42 has held as under :- 30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. 36. In Sarla Verma (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 30 to 32 and para 42 has held as under :- 30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 42. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. 37. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is assessed as follows. S. No. Head Calculation Amount 1 Per annum income. Rs.3000x12 Rs.36,000/- 2 25% to be added in annual income (1) as future prospect. Rs.36000+Rs.9000/- Rs.45,000/- 3 1/5 of income assessed in column number (2), deduction towards personal and living expenses. Rs.45000-Rs.9000/- Rs.36,000/- 4 Multiplied by 14 as deceased was between 40-45 years at the time of accident. Rs.36,000 x 14/- Rs.5,04000/- 5 Compensation in the head of non-pecuniary loss (Loss of estate, loss of consortium and for funeral expenses). Rs.15000+Rs.15000+Rs 40000/- Rs.70,000/- 6 Compensation in lieu of medical expenses. Rs.70,000/- Rs.70,000/- Total (4+5+6) Rs.6,44,000/- 38. So far the interest on the aforesaid compensation is concerned, it has been settled that the annual interest payable on compensation should be at par with prevailing price index as well as rate of Bank Interest. Thus, looking into the present price index and rate of bank interest on deposit, the claimants are entitled 8% annual interest on the aforesaid compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. 39. Thus, looking into the present price index and rate of bank interest on deposit, the claimants are entitled 8% annual interest on the aforesaid compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. 39. So far as regard the liability to pay the above compensation is concerned, respondent No1, Jamuna Prasad is owner of the offending vehicle No. U.P.-70-K 8724; respondent No.2, Man Singh, is driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident whereas the respondent No.3 has been shown as insurer of the said vehicle and alleged accident, wherein deceased Raj Pal had died was occurred on 22.3.2016. 40. From perusal of paper no.22-G to 24-G, filed by respondent No.1, Jamuna Prasad, before the Tribunal, it transpires that the said offending vehicle is LMV(car), was registered in the name of Jamuna Prasad and ensured by respondent No.3, Insurance Company from 31.10.2015 to 30.10.2016. The driving license of respondent no.2, Man Singh, was issued on 15.9.2012, was valid up to 22.5.2017. The said driving license was also forwarded for verification to Regional Transport Officer (R.T.O), Kanpur, who vide his letter dated 11.7.2017 (available on record) has informed that as per record, the driving license issued in favour of Man Singh, respondent No.2, for motor cycle and LMV car was valid and effective from 15.9.2012 to 3.7.2016. 41. Thus, in view of the above, all the documents of the alleged vehicle including driving licence were valid and effective and the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 on the date of accident. Although, the primary liability for the payment of compensation lies on the shoulder of the respondents no.1 and 2 who are owner and driver of the offending vehicle, but as the said vehicle, at the time of accident, was insured with respondent No. 3, Insurer, and there is no breach of policy, the actual liability to pay the aforesaid compensation along with interest is fixed on respondent no.3 (Insurer). 42. In view of the above, respondent no.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit Rs. 6,44,000/- (Six lacs forty four thousand only) along with 8% annual interest from the date of claim petition before the tribunal, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Out of the said compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. 6,44,000/- (Six lacs forty four thousand only) along with 8% annual interest from the date of claim petition before the tribunal, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Out of the said compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lacs) will be payable to each claimant No.2 to 6 and shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till their age of majority. The rest amount of compensation, along with interest accrued on the aforesaid whole amount, will be payable to appellant No.1. 43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order and award dated 31.8.2017 passed by Tribunal is hereby set aside. Appeal is allowed and claim petition filed by claimant is allowed to the extent of compensation along with interest as above. 44. Office is directed to send back the Lower Court Record to the Tribunal, along with the copy of judgment forthwith for information and compliance.