M.C. Sharma, J. - (1.) THESE three misc. appeals have been filed by the claimants against the common award dated 11.8.2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge (Fast Track No. 2), Tonk in MACT cases Nos. 305/2004 (229/2001) (542/1999), 304/2004 (2761/2001) (468/1998)and 306/2004 (2207/2001) (590/1999), whereby compensation was awarded to the claimants Rs. 7,000, Rs. 3,47,200 and Rs. 7,000 respectively. It would be appropriate for this Court to decide all these misc. appeals by this common order. The facts have been set out in the impugned common award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are on 11.5.1999 at about 11.00 p.m. Ram Pal, Shankar Lal and Har Narain were going in a tractor trolley in order to unload gravel loaded in it. They were travelling as labourers for unloading in the tractor trolley: Respondent No. 1 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed because of which it overturned near Chaturapura Ki Nali. Ram Pal, Shanker Lal and Har Narain, sustained serious injuries out of which Ram Pal died. Three claim petitions were filed by the claimants. The driver and the owner of the tractor trolley filed joint reply to the claim petitions. The Insurance Company of the tractor trolley, respondent No. 5 also filed its separate reply. On the basis of the pleadings of both the sides relevant issues were framed by the MACT. After submitting documents and recording statements of the witnesses on hearing arguments of parties, the MACT vide common award dated 11.8.2004 allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation mentioned above. Against the common award all the claimants filed the above three appeals for enhancement of the compensation. The learned Counsel for the claimants has argued that the MACT while deciding issue No. 3 in a manner that the driver was not having a valid driving licence on the basis that charge under Sections 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was framed against the driver, hence it was presumed that he was not having a valid licence. The Insurance Company was duty bound to lead cogent evidence in this regard from the record of the RTO or to serve notice on the driver or owner of the tractor trolley to produce driving licence. It was argued that merely on the basis that charge under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was framed, hence it is presumed that the driver was not having valid driving licence. The learned Counsel has further argued that even otherwise it is also settled principle of law that in case of breach of policy condition the Insurance Company is duty bound to pay compensation to the claimants which it can recover from the owner of the vehicle. The MACT has further erred in exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased was not traveling in the tractor trolley as a labourer relating to agricultural purposes. It has been argued that the claimants proved by unrebutted evidence that they were travelling in the tractor trolley as a labourer for unloading gravel, which undoubtedly has been held to be a work relating to agricultural purposes. No evidence whatsoever was led by the Insurance Company which could prove that the deceased and the injured were not travelling in the tractor trolley as a labourer for unloading gravel.
(3.) IN SBCMA No. 2476/2004, the learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that the MACT has erred in awarding merely a sum of Rs. 7,000 to the claimant -appellant in a lump sum way. It was proved by unrebutted evidence that the appellant being labourer used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month prior to the accident. He sustained serious injuries all over the body, specially on his leg, knee, elbow and hips. He remained admitted in Hospital for 15 -20 days and remained confined to bed for about two months. During the prolonged treatment about a sum of Rs. 5 -7 thousand were spent under different heads. Despite the prolonged treatment he feels pain in his hip bone and his working and earning capacity has been reduced considerably. In these circumstances it was prayed that the compensation should be enhanced.;