Surinder Gupta, J. - (1.) This is an application under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to implead legal heirs of appellant no. 1 -Phulla Devi, who is stated to have died on 18.01.2015, leaving behind legal heirs as mentioned in para 3 of the application. The application is supported by affidavit, as such, allowed. Amended memo of parties be taken on record. FAO No. 5563 of 2009 This is appeal filed by Phullo Devi and others seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (later referred to as 'the Tribunal') for the death of Rajender Singh in a motor accident. Claimant -appellant no. 1 is mother of the deceased and claimants -appellants no. 2 and 3 are son and daughter respectively, of the deceased.
(2.) Case of claimants, in brief, is that on 06.09.2007, the deceased alongwith his co -driver Chandi was going from Bangalore (Karnataka) to Baddi (Himachal Pradesh) while driving lorry/truck bearing registration No. HR -38M -8877. Sanjay and his co -driver Mahipal were following the truck of deceased in their lorry/truck bearing registration No. HR -38G -4377. When they reached near Nadavlakoppa on National Highway No. 13, a truck bearing registration No. HR -38L -1102 (later referred to as 'the offending vehicle') came from opposite side. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver i.e. respondent no. 1 -Raju Dan Charan. While attempting to overtake the vehicle ahead of the offending vehicle, it hit the truck of the deceased as a result of which cabin of truck was completely damaged resulting in serious injuries and death of Rajender Singh. The matter was reported to the police vide FIR (Ex. P -4) registered at Police Station Kushtagi. It is alleged that the deceased was 45 years of age and was earning Rs. 7000/ - per month as salary from his employer. He was also having income of Rs. 10,000/ - per month from agriculture.
(3.) Respondent no. 1 -driver of the offending vehicle in his written statement admitted the accident but alleged that it took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Similar plea was taken by respondent no. 2 -owner of the offending vehicle while respondent no. 3 -Insurance Company denied the accident.;