VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. - (1.) THE claimants in the two appeals are before me seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, "the Tribunal") by way of the common award dated 11.11.2009.
(2.) IN FAO No. 2961 of 2010 brought by Narinder Kaur and others, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,41,000/ - on the death of Suchha Singh and in FAO No. 2962 of 2010 brought by Sarabjit Singh and others, a sum of Rs. 7,40,000/ - has been awarded as compensation on the death of Dilbag Singh, by the Tribunal. The appellants have brought the two appeals for enhancement of this compensation. The claim petitions have been brought by the appellants under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"). The facts necessary for decision of these appeals is taken mainly from FAO No. 2961 of 2010 and the same are as under: On 16.7.2008 at about 8.15 p.m., Suchha Singh and Dilbag Singh were returning to Kurukshetra from village Kalnthla Khurd on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR -07J - 0795. Dilbag Singh was driving the same and Suchha Singh was riding its pillion. They were followed by their relative, Mahinder Singh on a separate motorcycle bearing registration No. HR -07J -8608. When they were opposite a card board factory near Canal Colony on Dhand - Kurukshetra road, a three wheeler bearing registration No. HR -5A - 6586 came from their opposite side at avery high speed. It was being driven in negligent manner. The said three wheeler came to the wrong side of the road and had hit the motorcycle driven by Dilbag Singh. The motorcycle was dragged to some distance by the three Wheeler. Dilbag Singh and Suchha Singh fell on the road and suffered multiple injuries. They were taken to L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra where Dilbag Singh was declared as dead. However, Suchha Singh was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh and he also succumbed to his injuries on the way to PGI, Chandigarh. Suchha Singh is claimed to be aged 46 years at the time of death. He is claimed to have been an agriculturist, who was running a dairy and was earning a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs per annum. On the other Dilbag Singh (deceased) is claimed to be aged 32 years at the time of his death. He is claimed to have been employed as a driver at a monthly salary of Rs. 8,740/ - with Larsen and Toubro Limited, Jalandhar. The claimants in both the cases had sought compensation in a sum of Rs. ten lakhs each. Respondents resisted the claim petitions. Respondent No.l and 2 have denied any cause of action with, the claimants to file and maintain the claim petitions. It is denied that the accident was caused by respondent No. 1 while driving the three wheeler. Claiming that the three wheeler was insured with respondent No.3, it was prayed that the amount of compensation, if any, be recovered from the insurance company.
(3.) RESPONDENT No.3 has even denied any accident to have taken place involving the three wheeler in question. The claim petitions are claimed to have been filed in collusion with respondents No.l and 2 in order to grab compensation. It is further averred that the insured had violated the provisions of the Act as well as terms of the insurance policy. Respondent No.l is denied to have been holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. It has been averred that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the motor vehicle accident dated 16.7.2008 is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of three wheeler No. HR -55A -6586 by Pawan Kumar respondent no.l? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners Saravjit Kaur etc. in the main case are entitled to compensation on account of death of Dilbag Singh in the aforesaid accident? If so, in what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners Narinder Kaur etc. in the connected case are entitled to compensation on account of death of Suchha Singh in the aforesaid accident? If so, in what amount and from whom? OPP. 4. Whether the driver of the aforesaid vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR -3;