- (1.) This is a revision petition against an Award dated 31.5.2011 passed in favour of respondent No. 1 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani ( for short 'the Tribunal') for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-on account of the simple injuries received by him in an accident, in which the mother of respondent No. 1 had expired. When questioned as to why the Insurance company has filed this revision petition against an Award of only Rs. 10,000/-on account of the injuries received by minor respondent No. 1 in an accident, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that besides challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to respondent No. 1, the Insurance Company is also challenging the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 regarding the negligence of the truck driver, which was insured with the petitioner-company. It has been claimed that the husband of the deceased had been driving the motor cycle with the deceased and two minor children in violation of the traffic rules and the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. In view of the said violation, he had contributed to the accident, as such the claimant would not be entitled to any compensation or in the alternative, it could be a case of contributory negligence effecting the extent of liability of the petitioner-Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the four claim petitions had been clubbed together and decided by one Award and the petitioner-Insurance Company has filed two separate appeals against the Award, besides the present revision and another civil revision petition, it is anticipated that in case finding on issue No. 1 is not challenged in the present revision, it might prejudice the right of the Insurance Company in FAO Nos. 6226 and 6227 of 2011, which are pending before this court. Learned counsel apprehends that in case these revision petitions are not pressed, it might be considered as a bar for the Insurance Company to challenge the findings on Issues No. 1 and 8, which are also the subject of the above said FAOs.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that on merits the quantum of Award i.e. Rs. 10,000/-awarded to respondent No. 1 does not warrant any interference as minor injuries had been suffered by respondent No. 1 in the accident. Learned counsel has made an attempt to impugned the finding of the learned Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 8 but since this court is not inclined to interfere in the quantum of compensation, no finding is given on the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner on Issues No. 1 and 8 without prejudicing the right of the petitioner-Insurance Company to challenge the validity of issue Nos. 1 and 8 in FAO Nos. 6226 and 6227 of 2011. As no finding has been given by this court on merits while dismissing this revision petition, it is ordered that the dismissal of this revision petition will not effect the rights of the petitioner-Insurance company to challenge the legality and validity of the findings of the learned Tribunal, on merits in the above said two FAOs. Dismissed.;