- (1.) This is an appeal by the claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs.4,90,200/- awarded to them, along with 7.5% interest per annum thereupon, on account of the death of Ram Chander, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.08.2010. Appellant No.1 is the widow of the deceased and appellant Nos. 2 to 9 the children of the deceased, of whom appellant Nos. 3 to 9 are shown to be minors on the date of the death of their father.
(2.) The facts, as taken from the impugned Award of the learned Tribunal, are that at about 3:00 am on 30.08.2010, Ram Chander was sleeping at the shop of one Surender Verma on the main road, Bhud Colony, Old Faridabad, and when he was going to answer the call of nature, a Mahindra XYLO No.HR-26AZ-0274, hit him, allegedly having been driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, by respondent No.2 herein. The said vehicle is shown to be owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.3. The late Ram Chander is stated to have been working as a Chowkidar at night, in the area of Sectors 28 and 29, Faridabad, and was doing the work of a labourer during the day, earning Rs.9000/- per month. After his death, it was pleaded that his widow and children had lost their only bread earner and therefore claimed Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation.
(3.) Respondent No.1 filed his written statement before the Tribunal, taking preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and locus standi and, on merits, totally denying the accident and the contents of the claim petition. Respondent No.2, i.e. the driver of the vehicle, also took the same preliminary objections and other than that, stating that, in fact, he was not even an employee of respondent No.2 on the alleged date of the accident, as he had resigned much prior thereto, because of a financial dispute between him and his employer. It was further alleged that his salary had also been withheld by respondent No.1, due to which the said respondent had named him (respondent No.2) falsely in the FIR concerning the accident, only to avoid making payment of salary and to avoid litigation in the present case. He further submitted that he was never "challaned" by the police with regard to the accident and he only came to know of it when a registered cover reached his house, in his presence.;