JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal, at the behest of The New India Assurance Company, challenges the judgment and award dated 7.2.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No. 202 of 2008 awarding a sum of Rs.13,52,060/- with interest at the rate of 6%. 3. The parties are referred to as insurance company/appellant and claimants/respondents/original applicants. 4. The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased who was a police constable earning Rs.15,000/- per month and on the faithful day i.e., 20.11.2007 when the deceased was trying to nab an accused and was plying as pillion on the motorcycle bearing No. UP 20 J 9755 at about 11:30 in night on Delhi-Saharanpur main road National Highway near Janta Hotel, a truck bearing No. HR 29 B 7865 came in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the motorcycle from behind, deceased was a pillion rider dashed the motorcycle from behind the pillion rider, i.e., husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant No.2 died on the spot. The driver of the motorcycle on which deceased was plying sustained serious injuries, it is alleged that had the driver of the truck driven his truck in a careful manner, the accident would not have taken place. The driver of the truck came from behind and dashed on the left side of the scooter on unmetalled road (kachchee Sadak). The respondent No.1, namely, owner filed reply contending that his vehicle was being driven on its correct-side it was motorcyclist who was driving a rash and negligent driving and accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcyclist/policeman. It is further averred that the driver of the truck was authorised to drive the truck and had a valid driving license. The vehicle had its fitness and permit which was valid and that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. The insurance company in its written statement filed before the tribunal did not accept the fact that the vehicle was insured with them, as the claimant had not narrated the facts and not given the copy of the policy. It was further averred that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the motorcyclist. The insurance company in its written statement filed before the tribunal did not accept the fact that the vehicle was insured with them, as the claimant had not narrated the facts and not given the copy of the policy. It was further averred that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the motorcyclist. The claim petition was bad for non-joinder of the driver/owner and the insurance company of the motorcyclist and there was breach of policy condition. 5. Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that involvement of truck is doubtful as the F.I.R. was lodged against an unknown vehicle, the number of the truck was not mentioned in the F.I.R. just because the owner accepted that the vehicle was involved it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was involved, in the alternative, he has submitted that if this court does not accept this submission of the insurance company, then the alternative submission is that issue of negligence of the motorcycle and non-joinder of the driver/owner and insurance company of motorcyclist is also decided wrongly against insurance company. 6. It is further submitted that the site plan goes to show that the offending truck was driven on its correct side, the driver of the motorcycle seeing the truck coming from behind lost his balance and the vehicle slipped and that is how the deceased died. The tribunal did not consider this evidence of the driver and held that the driver of the truck was negligent. It is further submitted that compensation awarded is on higher side. 7. It is further averred in the grounds of the appeal memo and as submitted by counsel for insurance company that as the deceased had died while in service there is no economic loss to the family members and therefore also no compensation should have been awarded. It is further averred that in the alternative compensation awarded is highly excessive and the multiplier applied is also against settled principles of law. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle on its correct side, his evidence has not been discussed while discussing the issue of negligence. It is further averred that in the alternative compensation awarded is highly excessive and the multiplier applied is also against settled principles of law. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle on its correct side, his evidence has not been discussed while discussing the issue of negligence. It is stated that PW-2 Bhrampal had noted number of the truck but the same was absent in the FIR which was lodged immediately and within two minutes of accident how he had noted the number is also very doubtful. The involvement of the vehicle therefore is suspicious and even if it is considered that the vehicle was involved the finding of total negligence of the driver of the truck is against the record and requires interference. 8. As against this, the learned counsel for claimants has submitted that the involvement of the vehicle is proved even the owner does not dispute that the truck was not involved in the accident and therefore in absence of any evidence in the contributory negligence is concerned. The deceased was a pillion the vehicle dashed from behind it came from behind came on the unmetalled road and the driver of the truck also does not dispute that he came from behind his version is that the scooter is came in front of him which has not been believed by the learned tribunal. It is further submitted that as far as the compensation is concerned it is on the lower side no amount has been paid for future loss of income that the rate of interest is also on the lower side and request for enhancement of the amount under the head of non pecuniary damages if not on the main compensation be granted on oral request. 9. The Tribunal framed five issues and decided all of them against the appellant-insurance company. 10. The fact that the accident occurred on 11:30 p.m. is not in dispute. The involvement of both the vehicles was proved by leading cogent evidence, just because in the F.I.R. number of vehicle is not mentioned cannot be a ground to discard the finding of fact as to involvement of the truck when other reliable oral and unrebutted evidence led before tribunal made the tribunal came to the conclusion about the involvement of truck. Testimony of Brahmpal Singh, P.W. 2 who was driver of scooter proves that truck was involved. The involvement of the vehicle is proved as the F.I.R. charge-sheet and the evidence laid before the tribunal goes to show that the truck hit the motorcyclist from behind. DW-1 Satpal has been examined on oath as per his evidence, he has not denied his involvement of his vehicle. It is proved that he came on wrong side so as to overtake the motorcycle and dashed it on the left side and deceased fell on the dirt track. The deceased was a police officer, the motorcycle was on metal road but due to dash from behind the motorcycle went away on the unmetalled road this speaks about negligence of the driver of truck. Recently in First Appeal From Order No.866 of 2003, Smt. Santosh & others versus United India Insurance Company and others, decided on 4.3.2020, this Court has held as under: - “While interpreting the provisions of Section 168 and 168 (4) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) were ignored by the Tribunal while deciding the matter. The Tribunal rejected the clam petition, though the deceased was admitted in the hospital and the F.I.R. clearly spelt out that it was due to the involvement of the vehicle. This fact was proved as the driver fled away with the vehicle though G.D. entry also there with police authorities. The post mortom report also proved the fact that deceased died due to accidental injuries. The vehicle tractor trolly was proved to be involved in the accident. The tribunal held that the driver, owner and insurance of the motor cycle was not joined as a party. The accident had taken place on 25.05.2001 at 9.30 p.m. as a result of involvement of tractor trolly which was not disputed by owner or driver or Insurance Company which has been proved by cogent evidence just because there are certain contradictions in the testimony of the witness and because who got the injured, in the hospital is not mentioned, the claim petition was dismissed and being the claimants' case is disbelieved. The fact is that the charge sheet was filed pursuant to F.I.R lodged is not just because in dispute the tractor trolly was not confiscated detained on the spot it is held that the vehicle was not involved in the said accident. The fact is that the charge sheet was filed pursuant to F.I.R lodged is not just because in dispute the tractor trolly was not confiscated detained on the spot it is held that the vehicle was not involved in the said accident. Recently the High court of Gujarat in Joshi Rajendrakumar Popatlal Vs. Thakor Ramnaji Hamirji and Others, reported in 2020 ACJ 365 has held that the Tribunal should not decide claim petition by taking hyper technical approach and thereby frustrate the provision of beneficial peace of legislation. The Apex Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Satbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (4) SCC 345 has held that hyper technicality should not be allowed to frustrate the aim of beneficial peace legislation. In our case hyper technicality of the learned Tribunal has resulted into the flaw in his award. It was established that the deceased had definitely met with the accident involving two vehicles. It was also proved that the accident was between the tractor trolly and the motor cycle on which the deceased was plying. The technical defect of pleading should not have been made the basis of rejection of the claim petition. I am supported in my view by the decision of Apex Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh v. Bhim Singh, (2013) 11 SCC 507 , wherein provision of Section 173 of the ‘Act’ read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 will permit this court to reverse the perverse findings reached by the tribunal. The Apex Court decisions in Sharanmma V. North-East Karnataka RTC, (2013) 11 SCC 517 . The judgment in Dulcina Fernandes V. Joaquim Xavier, First Appeal No. 216 of 2004, decided on 14.11.2008 with also help the claimants. Therefore also the appeal will have to succeed.” 11. When the evidence is lead to show that the F.I.R., charge sheet, other documentary evidences and the oral testimony prove that the vehicle is involved, it cannot be held otherwise as argued by the counsel for the appellant. 12. While deciding the issue whether the vehicle is involved or not this court has held that the vehicle was involved. When the evidence is lead to show that the F.I.R., charge sheet, other documentary evidences and the oral testimony prove that the vehicle is involved, it cannot be held otherwise as argued by the counsel for the appellant. 12. While deciding the issue whether the vehicle is involved or not this court has held that the vehicle was involved. Hence the alternative submission of learned counsel for appellant will have to be evaluated in light of the evidence led, the principles enunciated and on the evidence led before the tribunal and the alternative submission that the driver of the truck was not negligent and it was driver of the motorcycle who was negligent and even if we consider this case as a case of composite negligence, the appellant may be given the right of recovery from the driver owner and insurance company of the motorcycle involved in the accident and it is further submitted that non joinder of the other vehicle is bad is not considered by the tribunal below which would vitiate the entire award. In contra, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the driver of the motorcycle was not negligent, the driver of the truck came from behind dashed on the left-side of the motorcycle whereby the deceased was thrown on the unmetalled road and died on the spot, the driver of the motorcycle also fell on the dirt road and sustained injuries. It is submitted that the decision of the Apex Court and this High Court as far as filing a claim against any of the tortfeasor is at the option of the claimants and, therefore, the tribunal has rightly rejected this objection of the insurance company. 13. The collision of the truck into the rear portion of the motorcycle resulting in death of the pillion rider and whether the truck came too suddenly on center/right side and caused collision whether the truck did not maintain sufficient distance from the motorcycle thus amounting to rash and negligent driving, the finding recorded by the tribunal goes to show that evidence clearly indicated that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner which was the cause of the accident resulting in death of pillion rider. It is clear that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in same direction. It is clear that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in same direction. The driver of the truck did not depose that he had maintained sufficient distance. The road was National Highway 22 feet wide in any case the truck was expected to drive with a same distance as envisaged in rule of road regulations and, therefore, the finding on issue under consideration cannot be held against the motorcycle. The tribunal has not glossed over the filing of charge sheet against the truck driver after the investigation. The evidence analyzed by the tribunal along with the finding here-in-above cannot be reversed. I am supported in view by the judgment in Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 265. 14. Recently the apex court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 as there is no legal evidence to answer the issue of contributory negligence against the driver of the motorcycle and in absence of any such evidence this court cannot interfere under Section 166 read with 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 15. In view of the submission made by both the counsels as far as negligence is concerned this court while dealing with the issue of negligence, it would be relevant to discuss the principles for deciding negligence and for considering composite/contributory negligence will also have to be looked into and the principles enunciated for considering the same in a motor accident claim. 16. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence, it is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one, it is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen and likely to cause physical injury to person. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen and likely to cause physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. 17. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. It is well settled law it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was either or going ahead crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently and the driver can be held to be the author of the unforseen incident. 18. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 contains statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the driver of every motor vehicle must slow down vehicle at every intersection or junction of roads or at a turning of the road. It is also provided that driver of the vehicle should not enter intersection or junction of roads unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. Merely, because driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on the left side of road would not absolve him from his responsibility to slow down vehicle as he approaches tries to overtake of the vehicle on road, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the vehicle in or over which deceased was riding, was being played. 19. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330, from the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where drivers of motor vehicles who have caused accidents, are unknown. 20. In the light of the above discussion, even if courts may not by interpretation displace the principles of law which are considered to be well settled and, therefore, court cannot dispense with proof of negligence altogether in all cases of motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to develop the law further on the following lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven with reasonable care, it would ordinarily not meet with an accident and, therefore, rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence may be invoked in motor accident cases with greater frequency than in ordinary civil suits (refer Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0 ACJ(SC) 1840). 21. The burden of proof would ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a motor accident claim petition to prove that motor vehicle driven by the driver was being driven with reasonable care or it is proved that there is equal negligence on the part the other side in causing the accident. 22. The recent judgment of the Apex Court is also required to be seen in the factual background. The evidence of the driver of the scooter in contra indication to the evidence of the driver of the truck goes to show that the truck which was a heavier vehicle had not taken proper care, the autopsy report shows that injuries where caused by truck and it is further shown that the driver of the truck did not blow any horn. The insurer cross examined Balram Pal Singh, he has accepted that the F.I.R. was lodged against the unknown vehicle. The reason being he was unconscious for quite, some time he has noted the number of the truck, he has emphatically mentioned that the incident took place involving Truck no. HR 29 B 7865 the FIR in site plan though did not disclose this. The driver of the truck came from behind and dashed with motorcycle, this fact has not been either disputed or proved to the contrary by the insurance company or owner or driver. In this case, eye witness, PW-2 has deposed that the motorcycle was being driven at a moderate speed. The driver of the truck has disposed the scooter came all of a sudden but whether it was being driven in reckless manner is not mentioned. In this case, eye witness, PW-2 has deposed that the motorcycle was being driven at a moderate speed. The driver of the truck has disposed the scooter came all of a sudden but whether it was being driven in reckless manner is not mentioned. There is not dispute that the truck came from behind and dashed with the motorcycle going in front, it is a principle of law that a vehicle which is a bigger vehicle has to be more cautious. In this case, the truck came from behind dashed on the wrong side with the motorcycle. The motorcyclist was on his correct side is the version of the driver of the motorcyclist that due to the dash of the truck, the motorcycle went away on the unmetalled road and the deceased died on the spot this shows the impact of the accident the impact with which the truck hit the motorcycle going in front of the truck even if we consider the version of the driver of the truck namely DW-1 that the motorcyclist came on the road abruptly the same cannot be believed, the reason being it is a national highway and the motorcyclist was driving the motorcycle on road and there was no curve or by lane. The motorcycle cannot be said to be negligent as motorcyclist has also suffered injuries and therefore can it be said that he was a coauthor of the accident the principles for considering contributory negligence vis-a-vis composite negligence would also not permit this Court to hold in favour of the appellant and take a different view then that taken by the tribunal. The tribunal has given enough cogent reasons to come to the conclusion that the accident was authored by the driver of the truck against whom, the charge sheet was laid the post mortem report shows that it was an instantaneous death due to accidental injuries tribunal considered the site plan and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. Hence I cannot take a different view then that taken by the tribunal. Hence I cannot take a different view then that taken by the tribunal. The submission that the tribunal erred in holding that truck was involved in accident cannot be accepted just because the number of the vehicle was not mentioned in F.I.R. As per the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Procedure Code, 1908 would also not permit this Court to hold otherwise the owner has accepted that it was negligence of the driver of the motorcycle which shows that he has accepted his vehicle namely truck being involved and the alternative submission that it was a case of contributory negligence cannot be accepted. Hence, both involvement and negligence of the driver of the truck were established and were rightly considered by the tribunal in light of the aforesaid decision. 23. As far as the non-joinder of the driver owner and insurance company of motorcycle, the tribunal has given cogent reasons and as it was a case of composite negligence, there was no necessity to implead the other vehicle involved in the accident. Necessity to implead the other vehicles was not there as truck driver has been held to be sole negligent. 24. This takes this Court to the question of compensation awarded. The deceased was a police personnel and his compensation of Rs.13,52,060/-cannot be said to be higher-side. The Tribunal has added only Rs.9,500/- for the non pecuniary damages and has not awarded any amount under loss of future income. Even if no appeal is preferred this court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can grant just compensation and additional amount of Rs.70,000/- for non pecuniary damages as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 105 would be just and proper. 25. The appeal stands dismissed. 26. Oral cross objection is allowed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 27. The additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till deposit. The amount be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today. 28. Records and proceedings be sent back to the Court below immediately. The amount be disbursed by the Tribunal without keeping in fixed deposit as 13 years have already lapsed.