- (1.) This order being passed in FAO-6069-2012 shall dispose of, in addition to this appeal, another appeal, i.e., FAO-6423-2012 also, as both these appeals have arisen from a common award dated 23.7.2012 whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short,''the Tribunal'') has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,45,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum in favour of Mahabir Singh, appellant, in FAO-6069-2012. While Mahabir Singh aforesaid appellant seeks modification of the award by enhancing the amount of compensation, Birender Singh @ Virender Singh (owner of the offending vehicle), appellant in the other appeal, assails the findings of the learned Tribunal, whereby the insurer namely, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has been granted rights to recover the amount of compensation from him. Case of the applicant-appellant Mahabir Singh before the learned Tribunal was that on 6.1.2011, at about 5.30/6.00 P.M., he was returning to his village from Bhora Kalan on a motor-cycle bearing registration No. HR-26-AE-7509 and had reached near Bus Stand, Bhora Kalan. A Mahindra Pick Up bearing registration No.HR- 55-D-1927 (for short,''offending vehicle'') belonging to Birender Singh @ Virender Singh,appellant in FAO-6423-2012 and insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited came from Pataudi side on wrong side of the road being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor-cycle which he was riding. As a result, he received grievous injuries which ultimately resulted into 6% permanent disability. Claim application was contested by the respondents.
(2.) From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident has been caused on 6.1.2011 at about 5.30/6.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No. HR-55-D-1927 and caused injuries to Mahabir Singh, as alleged OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, then what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident OPR 4. Whether the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy OPR. 5. Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured OPR. 6. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form OPR 7. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition OPR. 8. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties OPR 9. Relief.
(3.) Both the sides adduced evidence and were heard by the learned Tribunal. On perusal of the evidence in the light of the submissions made at the bar, learned Tribunal concluded that factum and manner of occurrence stood sufficiently proved and so was proved entitlement of the applicant-appellant to receive compensation. Accordingly, a compensation amounting to Rs. 1,45,000/- was awarded and the respondent-Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation in the first instance and then to recover it from owner of the offending vehicle, as according to the learned Tribunal, driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid licence on the date of occurrence, i.e., 6.1.2011.;