ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 101 and 100 of 1989 as the same arise out of a common award relating to one accident.
(2.) F .A.O. No. 101 of 1989 has been preferred by the widow, two daughters and mother of deceased Pargas Ram @ Parkash Ram, while F.A.O. No. 100 of 1989 has been filed by Amar Singh, injured, who at the time of accident was travelling alongwith the deceased. Both the appeals have been preferred against award dated 3.11.1988 whereby the claim petitions of the claimants have been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12.11.1986 Pargas Ram @ Parkash Ram working as driver alongwith Amar Singh, working as conductor under Punjab Scooters Limited, Nabha, was driving Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. PAP-6542 belonging to Punjab Scooters Limited from village Asron. When they reached between village Tarkheri and Jindalpur, a bus bearing registration No. PUC-3275 driven by respondent Raghbir Singh in a rash and negligent manner, struck against Swaraj Mazda. Due to the impact, both Pargas Ram @ Parkash Ram and Amar Singh sustained injuries. However, later Pargas Ram @ Parkash Ram succumbed to his injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased-driver, namely, widow, two daughters and mother, then filed petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation. Amar Singh whose left hand got fractured in the accident, also filed a claim petition.
(3.) UPON notice of claim petitions, respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement submitted that the bus in question was not involved in the accident. They pleaded that the Swaraj Mazda was being driven rashly and negligently by the deceased-driver and struck against the bus. It was further pleaded that Amar Singh injured too was not entitled to any compensation. Respondent No. 3, namely, the employer of the deceased and also Amar Singh, in its written statement took up the stand that their factory is covered under the Employees Insurance Act and both the deceased and the injured were insured under the said scheme and hence, they are debarred from claiming or receiving any compensation from the employer. Respondent No. 4, namely, the insurance company in its written statement pleaded that though Swaraj Mazda was insured with it but it has a limited liability to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It was further pleaded that since no relief has been claimed by the claimants qua it, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.;