NIRMAL YADAV, J. - (1.) VIDE this common judgment all the aforementioned appeals/cross appeals shall stand disposed of as they arise out of the one accident and involve common questions of fact and law.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 25.11.1990 Sham Singh Sandhu along with his wife Harbans Kaur and grandson Master Raj Karan was going from Ludhiana to Chandigarh in Maruti car bearing registration No. DAJ 1956. The said car was being given by Ashwani Kumar. It is pleaded that Ashwani Kumar was driving the car carefully on the correct side of the road. When he had just crossed Village Ucha Jatana, a bus belonging to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Chandigarh, bearing registration No. PJG-7515 came from the opposite side. The bus was driven by Raj Kumar at a very fast speed and in a very rash and negligent manner. The driver of the offending vehicle brought it on the wrong side and struck against the Maruti car. As a result of the accident, the car was totally smashed and the occupants of the car, namely, Sham Singh Sandhu, Harbans Kaur, Master Raj Karan and Ashwani Kumar sustained injuries. Harbans Kaur and Ashwani Kumar died at the spot. Sham Singh Sandhu and his grandson Master Raj Karan were removed to Civil Hospital, Samrala with the assistance of the villagers and eye-witnesses. However, later on, they succumbed to the injuries sustained by them in the accident. The accident was witnessed by Surinder Kumar s/o Mohan Lal and Ravinder Singh son of Harparkash Singh. The claim petitions filed by claimants were contested by Raj Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation as well as the National Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured. The defence of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation was struck off as it failed to file its written statement and, as such, the claim petitions were contested by Raj Kumar, driver of offending vehicle and National Insurance Company. Raj Kumar, driver denied the allegation that the accident was caused on account of his negligence. According to him, the bus in question was not at all involved in the accident. The insurance company took legal objections, such as, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and driver of the bus did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident. The issues framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties and objections filed by the respondents were consolidated and decided vide order dated 5.4.1994 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the present appeals have been filed. On the one hand, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and driver of the offending vehicle have pleaded the compensation awarded to be exorbitant, while on the other hand, the claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation. Initially, F.A.O. Nos. 2299, 2300, 2301 and 2302 of 1994 were jointly filed on behalf of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, National Insurance Company and driver of the offending vehicle. However, later on, an application moved by the National Insurance Company to transpose it as respondent was allowed vide order dated 1.11.2006.;