- (1.) A motor vehicle accident took place on 28.1.2002 in which Balkar Singh died while five other persons were injured. The legal heirs of Balkar Singh were granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of no fault liability, while the claim petitions filed by the injured persons were dismissed. The heirs of Balkar Singh came up in appeal for enhancement of the compensation and the other appellants filed separate appeals against the order of dismissal of the petitions.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants argued that it was proved that the case was of composite negligence and in that event driver of any of the two vehicles i.e. either the truck or the TATA Sumo, could be held liable and insurer of that vehicle was liable to indemnify the appellants. He said that it is proved on record from the statement made by the witnesses that the accident had been caused by the truck which was being driven rashly and negligently and the driver of the TATA Sumo also did not stop the vehicle and struck against the truck from the behind.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 6 argued that a detailed award, which was well reasoned, was passed by the Tribunal holding that the accident was not proved as alleged due to major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. He also contended that earlier the appellants had impleaded only the driver, owner and insurer of the truck, but when they realized that they may not be able to prove their case, they impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the TATA Sumo as well in an attempt to get compensation from either of the two. It was rightly pointed out by him that the appellants should have been sure that as to who caused the accident and if it was only the truck driver, there was no need to involve the TATA Sumo.;