Vijender Singh Malik, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Hisar (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 19.12.2009 in a sum of Rs. 1,57,206/ - on the death of their unmarried son, named Rakesh. The claim petition brought by the appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") is for compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/ -. The facts necessary to decide this appeal can be reproduced as under: On 27.2.2003, Rakesh (deceased) along with one Krishan was coming from village Madanheri in a tractor bearing registration No. RJ -31R -5714 after loading sugar -cane in the trolly attached thereto. Rakesh was going to his field at Kanau, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). At about 8.00 p.m. they were in the revenue estate of Hansi, 16 kilometers away from Hansi towards Delhi. In the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No. HR -39 -7767 driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Hansi and the back portion of the truck had hit the tractor on account of which tractor fell in roadside pits. Rakesh suffered multiple injuries. He was taken to General Hospital, Hansi. As his condition was serious, he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. He was, however, taken to CMC Hisar. He succumbed to his injuries on 3.3.2003. A sum of Rs. 80,000/ -is claimed to have been spent in his treatment and last rites.
(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 3 did not opt to contest the claim. The claim petition has been resisted by respondents No. 4 and Respondent no.4, the insurer has claimed that the truck was being driven at the relevant time by a person not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was even denied to be insured with the answering respondent at the time of accident. The accident is denied to have taken place with the truck in question. The other averments of the claimants have been denied. It is averred that a false case was got registered with police against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 5 has claimed that a false claim petition had been filed just to grab compensation. He has denied all the averments of the petitioners.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 25.8.2006: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No. HR -39 -7767 by respondent No. 1 Dalip Singh? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation on account of death of Rakesh. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claimants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR. 4. Relief. On 26.2.2008, the following additional issues were framed in the case: 5.WHETHER the vehicle bearing registration No. HR -39 -7767 was being driven by respondent No. 1 without holding effective driving licence? OPR -3 Whether the vehicle bearing registration No. HR -39/7767 was being driven by respondent No. 1 in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy? OPR -3.;