mere non marking of documents as Exibits is only procedural lapse not fatal = First, the appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted in death of Rajendra Prasad. 27. Second, the appellants filed material documents to prove the factum of the accident and the persons involved therein. 28. Third, the documents clearly established the identity of the Truck involved in the accident, the identity of the driver driving the truck, the identity of the owner of the Truck, the name of the insurer of the offending Truck, the period of coverage of insurance of the Truck, the details of the lodging of 13 FIR in the concerned police station in relation to the accident. 29. In our view, what more documents could be filed than the documents filed by the appellants to prove the factum of the accident and the persons involved therein. 30. Fourth, so far as the driver and owner of the Truck were concerned, both remained ex parte since inception and, therefore, neither contested the appellants’ claim petition nor entered into the witness box to rebut the allegations of the appellants made in the claim petition and the evidence. An adverse inference against both could be drawn. 31. Fifth, so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they also did not examine any witness to rebut the appellants’ evidence. The Insurance Company could have adduced evidence by 14 examining the driver of the offending Truck as their witness but it was not done. 32. Sixth, on the other hand, the appellants examined three witnesses and thereby discharged their initial burden to prove the case. 33. Seventh, if the Court did not exhibit the documents despite the appellants referring them at the time of recording evidence then in such event, the appellants cannot be denied of their right to claim the compensation on such ground. In our opinion, it was nothing but a procedural lapse, which could not be made basis to reject the claim petition. It was more so when the appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove their case and the respondents did nothing to counter them.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11042  OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17321 of 2016)
Vimla Devi & Ors.             ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
National Insurance Company
Limited & Ors.             ….Respondent(s) 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the claimants against
the   final   judgment   and   order   dated   23.03.2015
1
passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for
Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 1739 of
2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the claimants and affirmed the award dated
05.12.2005 passed by the MACT Chomu (Jaipur) in
MAC Case No. 48/2005. 
3. In order to appreciate the issues arising in the
case, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts
hereinbelow.
4. The   appellants   are   the   claimants/plaintiffs
whereas   the   respondents   are   the   nonapplicants/defendants
in the claim petition out of
which this appeal arises.
5. One Rajendra Prasad aged around 25 years
was travelling in the passenger Bus bearing No.RJ07­P­2151
as its bona fide passenger on 03.06.2003
for going to a place called  "Chomu".  When the Bus
reached   near   Police   Station,   Chomu,   a   Truck
2
bearing No. HR­55A­7729, which was going towards
Jaipur   from   Chomu   came   on   a   high   speed   and
dashed against Bus. The impact of dash against the
Bus was so violent that Rajendra Prasad, who was
sitting inside the Bus, sustained grievous injuries
resulting in his instant death. This led to filing of
the FIR No. 214/2003 in Police Station, Chomu.
6. It is this incident, which gave rise to initiation
of two legal proceedings, namely, criminal and civil.
So far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, a
charge sheet (1/2003) was filed by the State against
the driver of the offending Truck in the Court of
Magistrate under Section 304­A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”).
7. So far as the civil proceedings are concerned
with which we are concerned in this appeal were
filed by the appellants herein (claimants), who are
the     wife     and   the   two   minor   children   of   the
3
deceased,   against   the   Insurance   Company
(respondent No. 1), driver (respondent No. 2) and
the owner (respondent No. 3) of the offending Truck
under   Section   166   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Motor
Accident Compensation Tribunal, Chomu claiming
therein to award reasonable compensation to them
for the loss sustained on account of untimely death
of Rajendra Prasad­their only bread earner in the
family.
8. The appellants along with their claim petition
filed all those documents, which were filed by the
State in the criminal proceedings against the driver,
such as  FIR, charge sheet, site plan, post mortem
report of the deceased, registration of Truck No. HR
­A­7729, insurance coverage, mechanical inspection
report, copy of notice issued to the owner under
Section 133 of the Act etc.
4
9. So far as the driver and owner of the offending
Truck are concerned, since inception both remained
ex parte in the proceedings. So far as the Insurance
Company (insurer) is concerned, they alone entered
appearance   and   filed   the   written   statement.   The
Insurance Company, however, contended  inter alia
in their written statement that firstly, the owner of
the   Truck   did   not   give   any   intimation   to   the
Insurance Company; Secondly, the owner and the
driver of the bus were not impleaded as party in the
proceedings; and Thirdly, the owner of the offending
Truck did not send a copy of the driving license of
the driver to the Insurance Company to enable them
to make an inquiry about its genuineness (see Para
3 of the award).
10. The   claimants   examined   three   witnesses   in
support of their case. The Insurance Company did
not   examine   any   witness.   By   award   dated
5
05.12.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants’
claim petition. It was held that the claimants failed
to   prove   the   accident   including   involvement   of
offending Truck, which caused death of Rajendra
Prasad. It was held that though the claimants filed
the documents but since those documents were not
exhibited, the Insurance Company could not crossexamine
  the   claimants’   witnesses   on   the
documents.   In   short,   the   Tribunal   held   that   the
claimants failed to prove the accident for want of
evidence and the one adduced was not exhibited
and hence was of no use. These were basically the
two   findings   on   which   the   claim   petition   was
dismissed. 
11. The claimants felt aggrieved and filed appeal in
the High Court for  Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur. By
impugned   order,   the   High   Court   dismissed   the
appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present
6
appeal by way of special leave by the claimants in
this Court.
12. Heard Mr. Maruf Khan, learned counsel for the
appellants   and   Ms.   Meenakshi   Midha,   learned
senior counsel for respondent No.1.
13. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are   constrained   to   allow   the   appeal   and   while
setting aside the impugned order allow the claim
petition   filed   by   the   appellants   (claimants)   and
award reasonable compensation to the appellants
as indicated infra.
14.     In   our   considered   opinion,   the   approach,
reasoning and the conclusion of the Tribunal and
the High Court for dismissing the appellants’ claim
petition/appeal   was   not   in   accordance   with   law
inasmuch   as   both   did   not   deal   with   any   issue
arising in the case. The High Court while dismissing
7
the   appeal   simply   affirmed   the   award   of   the
Tribunal without assigning any reason.
15. Before we examine the factual matrix of the
case   at   hand,   it   is   apposite   to   take   note   of   the
provisions of the Act, which have relevance while
deciding the claim petition.
16. At the outset, we may reiterate as has been
consistently said by this Court in a series of cases
that   the   Act   is   a   beneficial   piece   of   legislation
enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor
accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely.
The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the
victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in
law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and
other   proceedings   while   prosecuting   the   claim
petition   filed   under   the   Act   for   claiming
compensation for the loss sustained by them in the
accident.     
8
17. Section 158 of the Act casts a duty on a person
driving   a   motor   vehicle   to   produce   certain
certificates,   driving   licence   and   permit   on   being
required by a police officer to do so in relation to the
use of the vehicle. Sub­section (6), which was added
by way of amendment in 1994 to Section 158 casts
a duty on the officer in­charge of the police station
to forward a copy of the information (FIR)/report
regarding   any   accident   involving   death   or   bodily
injury to any person within 30 days from the date of
information   to   the   Claim   Tribunal   having
jurisdiction   and   also   send   one   copy   to   the
concerned   insurer.   This   sub­section   also   casts   a
duty on the owner of the offending vehicle, if a copy
of   the   information   is   made   available   to   him,   to
forward the same to the Claims Tribunal and the
insurer of the vehicle.
9
18. The Claims Tribunal is empowered to treat the
report of the accident on its receipt as if it is an
application made by the claimant for award of the
compensation  to him  under the  Act by virtue  of
Section 166 (4) of the Act and thus has jurisdiction
to decide such application on merits in accordance
with law.   
19. The object of Section 158(6) read with Section
166(4) of the Act is essentially to reduce the period
of pendency of claim case and quicken the process
of   determination   of   compensation   amount   by
making   it   mandatory   for   registration   of   motor
accident claim within one month from the date of
receipt of FIR of the accident without the claimants
having to file a claim petition. (See Jai Prakash vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,  2010 (2) SCC 607).
10
20. There are three Sections, which empower the
Claims   Tribunal   to   award   compensation   to   the
claimant,   viz.,   Section   140,   Section   163­A   and
Section­166 of the Act.
21. So far as Section 140 of the Act is concerned,
it deals with the cases for award of compensation
based on the principle of no fault liability.
22. So far as Section 163A of the Act is concerned,
it deals with special provisions as to payment of
compensation and is based on structured formula
as specified in Second Schedule appended to the
Act.
23. While   claiming   compensation   payable   under
Section   140   and   Section   163A   of   the   Act,   the
claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act,
neglect or default of the person concerned against
whom the claim is made by virtue of Section 140 (4)
and Section 163A ( 2 ) of the Act.
11
24. So far as Section 166 of the Act is concerned,
it also deals with payment of compensation. Section
168   of   the   Act   deals   with   award   of   the   Claims
Tribunal whereas Section 169 of the Act provides
procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. As
has been held by this Court (Three Judge Bench),
the claim petition filed under the Act is neither a
suit nor an adversarial  lis  in the traditional sense
but it is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by
the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a
complete   Code   in   itself.   (See  United   India
Insurance  Company  Ltd.  vs  Shila  Datta  &  Ors.,
2011 (10) SCC 509).
25. Keeping in view the aforementioned principle
of law when we examine the facts of the case at
hand, we are of the  considered opinion that  the
Claims   Tribunal   and   the   High   Court   were   not
12
justified in dismissing the appellants’ claim petition.
In our view, the appellants’ claim petition ought to
have   been   allowed   for   awarding   reasonable
compensation to the appellants in accordance with
law. This we say for the following reasons.
26. First,   the   appellants   had   adduced   sufficient
evidence to prove the accident and the rash and
negligent   driving   of   the   driver   of   the   offending
vehicle, which resulted in death of Rajendra Prasad.
27. Second,   the   appellants   filed   material
documents to prove the factum of the accident and
the persons involved therein.
28.   Third, the documents clearly established the
identity of the Truck involved in the accident, the
identity of the driver driving the truck, the identity
of the owner of the Truck, the name of the insurer of
the   offending   Truck,   the   period   of   coverage   of
insurance of the Truck, the details of the lodging of
13
FIR in the concerned police station in relation to the
accident. 
29. In our view, what more documents could be
filed than the documents filed by the appellants to
prove the factum of the accident and the persons
involved therein. 
30. Fourth, so far as the driver and owner of the
Truck were concerned, both remained ex parte since
inception   and,   therefore,   neither   contested   the
appellants’   claim   petition   nor   entered   into   the
witness   box   to   rebut   the   allegations   of   the
appellants   made   in   the   claim   petition   and   the
evidence.  An adverse inference against both could
be drawn.
31. Fifth,   so   far   as   the   Insurance   Company   is
concerned, they also did not examine any witness to
rebut   the   appellants’   evidence.   The   Insurance
Company   could   have   adduced   evidence   by
14
examining the driver of the offending Truck as their
witness but it was not done.
32. Sixth,   on   the   other   hand,   the   appellants
examined three witnesses and thereby discharged
their initial burden to prove the case. 
33. Seventh,   if   the   Court   did   not   exhibit   the
documents despite the appellants referring them at
the time of recording evidence then in such event,
the appellants cannot be denied of their right to
claim   the   compensation   on   such   ground.   In   our
opinion,   it   was   nothing   but   a   procedural   lapse,
which could not be made basis to reject the claim
petition.   It   was   more   so   when   the   appellants
adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove
their   case   and   the   respondents   did   nothing   to
counter them.
34. In   the   light   of   the   aforementioned   seven
reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the
15
appellants   were   able   to   prove   the   factum   of   the
accident so also the factum of rash and negligent
act of the driver causing the accident. It is also
proved that the offending Truck was insured with
respondent No. 1 at the time of accident and was
owned by respondent No. 3.
35. This takes us to consider the next question as
to   how   much   compensation   the   appellants   are
entitled to claim for the death of their bread earnerRajendra
Prasad.
36. It has come in the evidence that the deceased
was around 25 years of age and left behind him his
wife and two minor children. It has also come in
evidence that he was earning around Rs.10,000/­
per month.
37. Having   regard   to   all   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to
take   Rs.5000/­   to   be   his   monthly   income.
16
Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, we get
around Rs.3300/­. The appellants are also entitled
to claim loss of future prospect at the rate of 40%,
which works out to Rs.1320/­ thus making a total
income of Rs.4620/­.  Applying the multiplier of 18,
we get Rs.4620x12 x18 = Rs.9,97,920/­.         .
38. To the aforementioned amount, we add and
accordingly   award   Rs.15,000/­   for   funeral
expenses,   Rs.15,000/­   for   loss   of   the   estate   and
Rs.1,00,000/­   for   loss   of   spousal   and   parental
consortium. In this way, the appellants (claimants)
are held entitled to claim Rs.11,27,920/­ by way of
compensation   from   the   respondents   jointly   and
severally. The amount awarded by this Court shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
claim petition till realization.
39. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds   and   is   allowed.   Impugned   order   is   set
17
aside. The appellants’ claim petition is allowed in
part   as   indicated   above   against   the   respondents
jointly and severally.
40. Respondent   No.1­Insurance   Company   is
directed   to   deposit   the   awarded   sum   within   3
months with the Claims Tribunal for being paid to
the appellants after proper verification.
   ………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                                   …...……..................................J.
                       [INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
November 16, 2018
18