Lisa Gill, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of both the above -noted appeals i.e., FAO No. 1443 of 2002 and FAO No. 1820 of 2002, which arise out of the same award dated 18.10.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, the Tribunal').
(2.) THE claim petition was filed by Avjot Preet Kaur, minor daughter of the deceased -Harpreet Kaur. It is an admitted fact that the claimant's mother, Harpreet Kuar, had obtained divorce from her husband -Avtar Singh i.e., the claimant's father in February, 1996. The deceased had thereafter re -married with Kulraj Singh. On 22.04.1999, the deceased alongwith her second husband Kulraj Singh and the children from the second marriage, was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HP -41 -7335 from Pehowa to Kurukshetra and to Delhi. When the Tata Sumo reached near village Indwari on the Pehowa -Kurukshetra road, at about 5.30 PM, a truck bearing registration No. PB -11K -1749 came from the opposite direction being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner. The truck struck against the Tata Sumo. All the persons travelling in the Tata Sumo including deceased -Harpreet died at the spot. FIR No. 195 dated 22.04.1999 was registered at police station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the truck, which is insured with respondent No. 3. The claim petition was filed by the minor daughter averring that she was still living with her mother after the divorce. The learned Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 2 resulting in the death of Harpreet Kaur. It was further held that there was nothing on the record to show that the claimant was living with the deceased after she had contracted the second marriage. But keeping in view the fact that she was the sole surviving legal representative of the deceased, the claimant was held entitled to get the compensation which was quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/ - by applying the rule of thumb.
(3.) THE Insurance Company had raised a plea that the driving licence held by respondent No. 2 was fake, therefore, it was not liable to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal rejected the said plea and held the Insurance Company liable.;