JUDGMENT : J.C. Doshi, J. 1. The present First Appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 6.2.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narmada in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.113 of 2011 and 114 of 2011, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,54,500/- and Rs.75,300/- respectively with 9% interest to the claimants from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization, holding original opponent Nos.1 and 2 liable, jointly and severally. However, while awarding the award, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the opponent – Oriental Insurance Company. 2. Briefly stated that on 10/06/2011 a) about 12.00 O'clock at noon the parents of minor Akshay were traveling in Jeep No. G.J-1-BP-1177 (for short “jeep”) and were going to village Vaghas and at that time near village Ratanpura the opponent no. 1 applied brake and due to a heavy jerk, minor Akshay who was sitting in the lap of his mother Kantaben was fallen down on the road and died. That applicant Kantaben also received grievous injuries. That at the time of accident minor Akshay was 3 years old. That minor Akshay was only son of the applicants and on account of his sudden death the applicants have to suffer loss of his love, affection and company beside future income. It is also their say that they had to incur expenses for deceased funeral ceremony. Hence, the applicants have claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of compensation from opponents u/s 163-A of M.V. Act. However, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award as stated above. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. DN Pandya for the appellants and learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar for the respondent No.3. Though served, none present for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned advocate for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in exonerating the insurance company from paying liability of compensation. He would further submit that the impugned judgment and award is passed in ignorance of the evidence on record. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal on appreciating the evidence on record swayed away by misinterpreting various judgments and committed gross error in exonerating the insurance company. He would further submit that the impugned judgment and award is passed in ignorance of the evidence on record. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal on appreciating the evidence on record swayed away by misinterpreting various judgments and committed gross error in exonerating the insurance company. He would further submit that in none of the evidence, it comes on record that the claimant and minor Akshay were travelling in the jeep as gratuitous passenger or fare paying passenger. He would further submit that even the owner of the jeep deposed before the learned Tribunal that he has given lift to Kantaben and minor Akshay. In view of this deposition before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal committed serious error in not the contentions put-forth by the insurance company to exonerate it. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has even drawn compensation on the lesser side, and therefore, the compensation is required to be enhanced. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased minor to Rs.15000/- notional, which is required to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays to modify the judgment and award suitably. 5. As against this, learned advocate Ms. Rahevar for the respondent No.3 while supporting the impugned judgment and award would submit that the deceased Akshay, at the time of road accident, was sitting on the lap of Kantaben – his mother and both have fallen from the jeep, as the jeep driver suddenly applied break and in that incident, minor Akshay died and claimant Kantaben received injuries. But, evidence suggests that both of them were not known to the driver and owner of the jeep, which indicates that they were travelling in a jeep as a gratuitous passenger and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed this issue to exonerate the insurance company. She would further submit that the offending vehicle jeep was sold to some third party, but it was not transferred and due to selling of the jeep, the intimation of which has not been given to the insurance company would lapse the policy issued by the insurance company. Thus, she would submit that even on this count, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company. 6. Thus, she would submit that even on this count, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company. 6. As far as compensation drawn by the learned Tribunal is concerned, she has submitted that no error much less an error of understanding the law or facts has been committed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, in view of that, the compensation derived by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and should not be disturbed. 7. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of N.K.V.Bros.Private Limited Versus M.Karumai Ammal reported in 1980 (3) SCC 457 . Para 3 is important, which reads as under:- “3. 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 case, 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. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour". Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practised by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Art. 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for state relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Court should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard.” 8. In order to appreciate rival submissions of learned advocates for both the parties in backdrop of above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, if we visualize the fact of the road accident taken place on 10.6.2011, deceased Akshay along with his mother after boarding jeep from village Nasvadi, were traveling in Jeep and were going to village Vaghas and when jeep reached near village Ratanpura, the jeep driver applied sudden break and due to that, both minor Akshay and his mother were thrown out of the jeep and received injuries, in which, minor Akshay died. The FIR is also registered against the jeep driver. The learned Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company by narrating following reasons in the impugned judgment and award. “13. So far as first question is concerned as discussed in previous para of this 13 Judgment and as principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v/s RATTANI AND OTHERS reported in 2009 (1) T.A.C. 420 (S.C.) the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the victim of motor vehicular accident in which they are traveling as a gratuitous passenger. So far as the status of the present applicant is concerned, Whether at the time of accident they were traveling as a gratuitous passenger or family members. The facts mentioned in FIR as well as in pleading is material and evidence produced by the applicant before this Tribunal is also material. The applicant has produced FIR of the present accident at Exh. 27 the applicant no. 1 Girishbhai Ranchhodbhai Bhil himself has lodged complaint before the Naswadi Police Station which is registered at Naswadi Police Station Crime No. 1-21/2011 against Rambabu Tejnarayan Jayaswal i.e. opponent no. The applicant has produced FIR of the present accident at Exh. 27 the applicant no. 1 Girishbhai Ranchhodbhai Bhil himself has lodged complaint before the Naswadi Police Station which is registered at Naswadi Police Station Crime No. 1-21/2011 against Rambabu Tejnarayan Jayaswal i.e. opponent no. I of the present petition fin in his FIR the complainant has stated that at the day of incident at about 10 a.m. they were waiting for the vehicle to go to village Khadkia and when so-called offending jeep was pass near them which was going to Vaghaz from village Naswadi, hence he alongwith his wife and victim child take a lift. That there were other passengers were also traveling in the offending jeep and when the vehicle was reached near village Ratanpur the driver of the offending jeep has suddenly applied brake of his jeep and incident was happened. There is no any single facts emerged from the FIR that at the time of accident applicants alongwith his family members were traveling as a family member in the offending jeep. Not only that but in cross-examination the applicant no. 2 Kantaben Girishbhai Bhil herself has accepted that at the time of accident she was traveling in jeep alongwith her husband and child to go at village Vaghaz and as such jeep was go to village Vaghas from village Naswadi. She has also accepted in the cross-examination that at the time of accident there were other five passengers traveling in the jeep. Considering the facts mentioned in FIR as well as reply given by the applicant in crossexamination it becomes very clear that at the time of accident the applicants were traveling as a paid passengers in the offending jeep and therefore there is clear violation of the condition of the insurance policy and hence insurance company is not liable to pay compensation on behalf of owner to the applicant.” 9. The learned Tribunal believed the deceased Akshay as well as his mother Kantaben to be a gratuitous passenger on the ground that they were travelling as passenger in a jeep owned by some third party along with some other passengers and therefore, they are gratuitous passenger. Injured Kantaben entered into the witness box at Exh.23, she filed affidavit for the chief, she has been cross-examined by the learned advocate for the insurance company. Injured Kantaben entered into the witness box at Exh.23, she filed affidavit for the chief, she has been cross-examined by the learned advocate for the insurance company. On perusal of cross-examination made by learned advocate for the insurance company, it appears that no suggestion is put to the claimant/witness that she was fare paying passenger or gratuitous passenger in the jeep. The only question which was asked to the claimant that along with her, five other passengers were travelling in the jeep and they were travelling as passenger in the jeep. Before the learned Tribunal, the owner/driver of the jeep also entered into the witness box at Exh.47. In his chief examination, he has stated that he is the owner of the offending vehicle jeep. In chief examination, he has further stated that on the date of the accident, he was driving his jeep from village Nasvadi to village Bhakha. He has also stated that Kantaben and Girishbhai are his relatives and he knows them since long as they used to come his shop for purchasing grocery. He has further deposed that in the chief examination that near village Ratanpura, he has applied sudden break in order to save life of a person, who came across in front of the jeep and due to which, Kantaben and minor Akshay fell down from the jeep, resulted into injuries and later on, it became fatal for the minor. On asking him as to whether he is using the jeep for transporting the passengers from one village to another by accepting fare, he denied the same. Another question was asked that even on the date of the incident, he had accepted the fare from the passenger including the claimant and transported them, which was answered in negative. The driver was also cross-examined by the learned advocate for the claimant, whereby he has admitted that he has not taken fare from any of the person travelling along with him in the jeep, rather he deposed that he uses jeep for the purpose of carrying and transporting grocery iterms and not using jeep for carrying passenger. Perusal of the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has believed more on the FIR than the oral evidence led before the learned Tribunal to believe that the claimant Kantaben and deceased Akshay were travelling as gratuitous passenger. Perusal of the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has believed more on the FIR than the oral evidence led before the learned Tribunal to believe that the claimant Kantaben and deceased Akshay were travelling as gratuitous passenger. In case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari rendered in Civil Appeal No.6151 of 2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if any evidence before Tribunal runs contrary to contents in First Information Report, evidence which is recorded before Tribunal has to be given weightage over contents of FIR. Even perusing the FIR and the contents thereof does not establish that claimant Kantaben and deceased minor were travelling in the jeep as fare paying passenger. The learned Tribunal has taken up the word “passenger” to believe that claimant Kantaben and deceased minor were travelling as gratuitous passenger in the jeep. As per Oxford English Dictionary, the passenger means “a traveller in or on a public or private conveyance; any occupant or such a conveyance other than the driver, pilot, crew etc.” Thus, the word “passenger” simply denotes as the occupant in the vehicle. Upon using word “passenger”, it cannot be presumed that he is fare paying passenger or gratuitous passenger. The learned Tribunal, who is expected to appreciate the evidence in holistic and pragmatic manner rather succumbed to technicalities and mystic maybes to exonerate the insurance company. According to this Court, the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in exonerating the insurance company. 10. Another contention raised by the insurance company that since the jeep was sold and no information has been supplied to the insurance company, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. This is another timid and wrong finding on the part of the learned Tribunal. The policy on the record covers the date of the accident and also covers the liability of the passenger travelling in the jeep. In view of that, the contention raised by learned advocate Ms. Rahevar does not survive and the findings to that effect given by the learned Tribunal is also failed to survive. 11. As far as compensation derived by the learned Tribunal is concerned, it is to be noted that deceased Akshay was just two years old. In view of that, the contention raised by learned advocate Ms. Rahevar does not survive and the findings to that effect given by the learned Tribunal is also failed to survive. 11. As far as compensation derived by the learned Tribunal is concerned, it is to be noted that deceased Akshay was just two years old. In a petition filed u/s 163A of the MV Act, taking the aid of structure formula and adopting the notional income of Rs.15000/- p.a., the learned Tribunal granted Rs.1,54,500/-, according to this Court, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in given facts and circumstances. 12. As far as claimant Kantaben is concerned, the notional income was believed to Rs.3000/- in absence of any date. Her physical disablement was considered to be 10% and the same was accepted by both the parties and taking up the structure formula, the learned Tribunal has granted total compensation of Rs.75,300/-. I found no error in the calculation of compensation in given facts and circumstances of the case. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that respondent No.3 – insurance company is also held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, in addition to respondent Nos.1 and 2, the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is maintained. The respondent No.3 – insurance company is entitled to deposit Rs.1,54,000/- as well as Rs.75,300/- with 9% p.a. interest and cost from the date of filing the claim petition till realization before the concerned learned Tribunal within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. 15. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.