VINEY MITTAL,J - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two appeals being FAO Nos. 2221 of 2000 and 2495 of 2000 as both the appeals have arisen out of a common award dated May 20, 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (for short, 'the Tribunal). FAO No. 2221 of 2000 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability to pay the compensation, whereas, FAO No. 2495 of 2000 has been filed by the claimants claiming enhancement of compensation.
(2.) AN accident had occurred on July 11, 1998 resulting in the death of Mahipal who was 20 years of age at the time of his death. A claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased. It was claimed that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of Ram Kumar, respondent No. 1 who was driving the offending vehicle No. HP-17/4907. It was also claimed that Mahipal was working as a mason and was earning Rs. 4,500/-. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence available on the record, found that accident had indeed occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Ram Kumar, driver of the offencing vehicle. On this account, the claimants were held entitled to receive compensation because of the death of Mahipal. Mahipal was found to be 20 years of age at the time of accident. However, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that Mahipal was working as a Mason at the time of his death. Accordingly, he was taken to be casual labourer and his monthly income was assessed at Rs. 1,500/- per month. His dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per month. Keeping in view the fact that the claimants were the father, Ajmer Singh who was 50 years of age and mother Ajmero who was 45 years of age, a multiplier of 11 was applied. The compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,32,000/- which was held payable jointly and severally by the driver, owner and the insurance company alongwith interest at the rate 12% per annum. A plea raised by the Insurance Company that the driving licence of the driver was fake, was rejected by the Tribunal holding that since there was a valid renewal of the aforesaid driving licence, therefore, the question of the issuance of the original driving licence being fake was irrelevant.
(3.) AS noticed above, two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants, respectively.;