Jitendra Chauhan, J. - (1.) TWO cross appeals, noticed above, are being disposed of by this single judgment, having arisen out of the impugned Award dated 06.10.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short, 'the Tribunal'). Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 05.03.2009, Krishan Kumar, since deceased, an agriculturist, after borrowing the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR -24 -K -1337, from respondent -owner, Ramesh Kumar, was going from Sirsa to Dhigtania and on reaching the turn of said village, all of a sudden, the motorcycle slipped and the deceased fell down due to which he received multiple injuries. He was removed to Amar Singh Sidhu Nursing Home, Sirsa, from where he was referred to Sarvodaya Hospital, Hisar. He was further referred to Jaipur as his condition deteriorated, however, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The incident was reported to the police and DDR No. 42 dated 06.03.2009, was recorded at Police Station Agroha, Hisar. The claimants preferred claim petition under Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the Act'), before the learned Tribunal against the owner, Ramesh. Kumar as well as the insurer, i.e. New India Assurance Company.
(2.) THE learned Tribunal, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, allowed the claim petition and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, was awarded under the personal accident cover. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred FAO No. 158 of 2011, praying for dismissal of the claim petition, whereas, the claimants have preferred FAO No. 2807 of 2011, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant -insurance company contends that the claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 163 -A of the Act, which provides for compensation to the third parties against the owner or insurer of the motor vehicle involved in an accident. It is argued that there is no third party liability incurred by the owner in the present case as the deceased was neither a third part qua the vehicle in question being driven by the deceased himself nor the deceased was insured nor there was any relationship of master and servant between the owner/insured and the deceased. The learned counsel further refers to General Regulation No. 36 (GR -36) of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules, to contend that the learned Tribunal fell in error while awarded compensation to the claimants under the Personal Accident Cover as the deceased was not the owner -cum -driver of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel cites New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and others, : 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 817 : 2009 ACJ 998 (SC), and Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2009(3) R. C.R. (Civil) 435: 2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 164: 2009(4) RAJ 164 (SC).;