R.R.Awasthi, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Suresh Panjwani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the records.
(2.) THE first appeal from order has been preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Vinay Kumar Agar- wal and Kusum Lata Agarwal, parents of the deceased Saurabh Agarwal against the judgment and award dated 26.5.2000, passed by the learned Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hardoi claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the impugned judgment and award along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the present claim till the date of actual payment. The factual matrix of the case is that on 4.7.1995, deceased Saurabh Agarwal was travelling in a jeep taxi No. UP 79-K 4871 to Kanpur for purchasing of certain items for his shop. At about 8 a.m. on Hardoi-Belgram Road near Tehsil Kusera a tractor having the registration No. UGD 1807 driven by the respondent No. 4 came in a high speed and due to negligent and rash driving of the driver collided with jeep due to which the deceased Saurabh Agarwal along with driver of the jeep died on the spot and other passengers were injured. A police report was lodged at Police Station, Belgram on 4.7.1995 at about 8.15 a.m. At the time of accident, the age of deceased was approximately 24 years. Deceased Saurabh Agarwal was engaged in the business of readymade garments, sarafa and transport. Deceased Saurabh Agarwal was unmarried at the time of his death. The appellants, before the Tribunal claimed that the deceased Saurabh Agarwal was a partner having 25 per cent share in the partnership firm in which his father, the appellant No. 1 was also a partner. Due to the accident, they have lost their young son who was looking after the business on the basis of which they were carrying out livelihood which has been badly affected.
(3.) THE respondents had filed their written statement before the learned Tribunal denying the assertion made in the claim petition. THE respondent Sukh Sagar in its written statement submitted that he is the owner of the jeep, in which deceased Saurabh Agarwal was travelling. At the time of the accident, the jeep was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. THE driver of the jeep had not driven the vehicle negligently. In the written statement submitted by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., it was submitted that the claim has not been filed on the prescribed pro forma fulfilling the necessary conditions hence, it is not maintainable. THE owner of the tractor No. UGD 1807 in its statement filed before the learned Tribunal had submitted that at the time of the accident the vehicle along with its trolley was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the driver was having a valid licence. It was further submitted that the accident with jeep had not occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. In the written statement submitted by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. before the learned Tribunal, it was submitted that since the site plan of the place of occurence was not submitted with the claim, therefore, the accident is not admitted. On the basis of rival submissions made by the parties the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues: (1) Whether in the alleged accident in which the son of the applicants, Saurabh Agarwal died, the vehicle No. UP 79-K 4871 and UGD 1807 were involved and whether the accident had occurred due to negligence of drivers? (2) Whether the vehicle No. UP 79-K 4871 was insured by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and whether the vehicle was insured at the time of accident, if yes or no, what was the effect? (3) Whether the vehicle No. UGD 1807 was insured by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., if yes or no, what was the effect? (4) Whether the drivers of vehicle Nos. UP 79-K 4871 and UGD 1807 had valid driving licence at the time of accident? If yes or no, what was the effect in the case? (5) Whether the claim was time-barred? (6) Whether the applicants were entitled to get compensation, if any and from which respondent? (7) Whether the claim is defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties? ;