JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE Oriental Insurance Company Limited (herein referred to as the appellant), has preferred this appeal against the award dated 10.09.2010 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (herein referred to as the Tribunal), whereby Gurdial Singh, claimant, was awarded an amount of ' 1,20,00/ - along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2005, Gurdial Singh along with one Jasbir Singh were coming back from Gobindgarh to Sangrur in a Maruti Zen car bearing No.HR -19 -B - 0219. When they reached near the Bus Stand of Hardaspur, the car, which was being driven by gurdial Singh, rammed into a Tata truck bearing No.HR -46 -A -0904, which was standing in the middle of the road without using dipper and indicators and all the three occupants received various injuries. Due to the accident, Jasbir Singh succumbed to the injuries whereas Gurdial Singh, claimant, received multiple injuries on his right leg and left arm and fracture on chin and jaw. The third occupant, Kirpal Singh had also received some injuries. It was alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of truck No.HR -46 -A -0904, as he had not used parking lights or indicator and therefore, created obstacle on the main road. In this backdrop, the claimant filed claim petition for the grant of compensation against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company, herein appellant, on the ground that the injured, Gurdial Singh, was 60 years of age at the time of accident. He was selfemployed contactor and earning Rs. 10,000/ - per month. The claimant also tendered in evidence disability certificate, Ex. PA, issued by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala, as per which, the claimant suffered disability to the extent of 17%.
(3.) UPON notice, the respondents contested the claim petition and denied the accident. They pleaded that if at all an accident took place, it was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Zen car by its driver. The appellant -Insurance Company averred that the driver of the truck in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The truck was not having valid route permit and fitness certificate. However, the owner did not contest the petition and was proceeded against ex parte.;