- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 6.2.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the claim petition filed by them on account of death of Jasbir Singh had been dismissed.
(2.) Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. On 17.4.1994, Jasbir Singh along with his associates was driving the tractor along with trolley bearing registration No. HR-24A-9485. Some persons occupying a canter started following the said tractor-trolley and near village Shahidanwali, the canter crossed the tractor-trolley and suddenly came ahead of the tractor. Jasbir Singh gave a sudden turn as a result of which the tractor-trolley turned turtle and Jasbir Singh was crushed under the tractor. Accordingly, the claimants filed a petition for compensation on account of death of Jasbir Singh. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Respondent No.1, i.e. owner of the tractor besides admitting the claim of the claimants submitted that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company in its written statement besides raising various preliminary objections pleaded that the claimants were not liable for any compensation as the deceased was not a third party at the time of accident nor he was holding any driving licence. Further, it was pleaded that the deceased was not the paid driver rather he was the owner of the vehicle being the son of the insured. The Tribunal, from the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the claimants are the only legal heirs of Jasbir Singh deceased? OPP 2. Whether the accident had taken place in the manner as alleged in para no. 24 of the petition? If so to what effect? OPP 3. What is the effect of non-impleading of driver, owner and the insurer of the Canter which had suddenly came ahead of the tractor being driven by Jasbir Singh deceased as a result of which Jasbir Singh suddenly turned his tractor and the tractor over turned and Jasbir Singh expired? OPP 4. To how much account of compensation are the legal heirs of Jasbir Singh deceased entitled to get for the death of Jasbir Singh and from whom? OPP 5. Whether the claim petition is vague and incomplete? If so to what effect? OPR2 6. Whether the claim petition discloses a cause of action against respondent No.2? OPP 7. Whether Jasbir Singh deceased was not holding a valid driving licence? If so to what effect? OPR2 8. Whether Jasbir Singh deceased was a third party qua respondent no.1 who was the owner of tractor No. HR-24A/9485? If so to what effect? OPP 9. Whether the claimants have not come to the court with clean hands? If so to what effect? OPR-2 10. Whether Jasbir Singh was a paid employee of respondent No.1? OPP 11. Relief.
(3.) Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants whereas issues No.2 to 6 and 8 were taken up together being interlinked and were decided in favour of respondent No.2-Insurance Company and against the claimants. It was held that the deceased was neither an employee of his father nor he committed any tortious act against any third party and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation for the death of said Jasbir Singh. Under issue No.7, it was held that the deceased Jasbir Singh was not holding any valid driving licence. Issues No.9 and 10 were also decided in favour of respondent No.2. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid issues, the claim petition was dismissed vide award dated 6.2.1998. Hence, the present appeal by the claimants.;