- (1.) BOTH these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) arise out of the same mo tor accident and similar questions are involved for determination in these ap peals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the appeals are heard to gether and are being decided by a com mon judgment.
(2.) A. O. No. 1311 of 2001 is di rected against the judgment and award dated 20-4-2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/district Judge, Uttarkashi fin short the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 22 of 1999 moved under Section 166 of the Act by the claimant-injured Kailash Chandra Sharma, whereby compensa tion of Rs. 1,08,000/- along with inter est @ 10% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant against the Insurance Company- appellant as well as Anand Kishore Narain, the owner of the vehicle. A. O. No. 271 of 2002 has been preferred by the insurer of the vehicle against the judgment and award dated 12-7- 2002, passed by the learned Tribu nal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 60 of 1999, Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Anand Kishore Narayan and others, whereby compensation of Rs. 15. 000/-along with interest has been awarded in favour of the claimant against the op posite parties jointly and severally as mentioned in the impugned order. At the outset, it may be men tioned that in the present appeals, the motor accident occurred involving Jeep No. U. P-07e-3177 on 12-5-1998, near Dharasu at place Am Bagh, which hit scooter No. U. P. 021 B-3082. The scooterist Vinod Sharma was driving the same and his brother Kailash Sharma was sitting as pillion rider on the same. The scooterists injured were going from Uttarkashi to Dharasu. It was alleged by the claimants that the offending jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by driver Satendra Singh. As a result of impact, both the claimants suffered in juries and became unconscious. They were brought to the District Hospital, Uttarkashi and subsequently, they were referred to Dehradun Hospital for treat ment. The claimants-injured incurred heavy expenditure in their treatment and, therefore, claimant Kailash Sharma filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 5,70,000 along with interest @ 18% per annum, while injured Vinod Kumar Sharma filed petition for compensation of Rs. 2,55,500/- on different counts. The offending jeep was duly insured with the appellant-insurance company and it was owned by Anand Kishore Narayan. It may be mentioned that the owner and driver of the offending jeep did not file any written statement and have not contested the claim petition.
(3.) THE Insurance Company filed its written statement and contested the claim petitions. According to insurer, the offending jeep was not insured on the date of accident. It was asserted that the owner/insured issued a cheque in respect of premium of the insurance, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account. On this ground, the In surance Company has asserted that it was not liable to pay compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues in the case. Issue no. 1 related to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending jeep. Issue No. 2 related to the non- insurance of the vehicle on the ground raised by the insurer and issue no. 3 related to the relief and compen sation.;