NAVITA SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award dated 17.2.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Ambala. Vide the said award, the Tribunal decided two petitions, i.e. MACT case No.296 of 1992 and MACT case No.105 of 1993. The first petition was filed by the present appellants for the death of Vipin Kumar Sahni.
(2.) THE appellants had filed the petition alleging that the deceased was going from Parwanoo to Narwana and was driving truck No.HRM -5154. At about 5.45 a.m. on 24.10.1992, when he crossed Chandimandir Railway Station, i.e. on Kalka -Ambala road, bus No.HYA -5278 came from the opposite side which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1. In the process of overtaking the truck, the bus hit the side of the truck being driven by the deceased and the latter fell on the road and succumbed to his injuries there and then. Respondent No.1 and some passengers of the bus also received injuries. The truck was badly damaged. Postmortem of Vipin Kumar Sahni was conducted at Civil Hospital, Kalka and a criminal case was registered against respondent No.1 in Police Station Chandimandir. Respondent No.1 denied all the allegations of the appellants and stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the deceased himself. Similar defence was taken by respondent No.2. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, i.e. respondent No.3 pleaded that no information was received in its office regarding the accident and if there was any such accident, it had not taken place on account of the fault of respondent No.1. The bus was being driven without a valid driving licence and other documents. Respondent No.4 -United India Insurance Company, who was the insurer of the truck, took a defence that respondent No.1 was driving the bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The truck was being driven by the deceased without a valid driving licence and it was, inter alia, pleaded that the answering respondent had been wrongly impleaded.
(3.) THE Tribunal framed the following issues in the petition filed by the present appellant: - 1. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent -Bobinder Nath Bakshi (Driver)? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent -Insurance Companies are not liable to pay any compensation on the pleas taken in the written statement? OPR 4. Relief. ;