Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against the common judgments and awards dt. 30.07.1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi ('the Tribunal'), whereby an award of Rs. 3,30,800/ - have been passed in favour of the respondents -claimants in Appeal No. 53/1998 and Rs. 75,000/ - have been passed in favour of the respondents -claimants in Appeal No. 54/1998. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.08.1993, Khuman Singh and Nanu Ram were travelling in Jeep No. RPJ -1196 when the said Jeep collided with a Truck No. APL -3119, Khuman Singh, who was aged 45 years and Nanu Ram, who was aged 04 years died in the said accident. Two separate claim petitions being MACT No. 172/1994 by the legal representatives of deceased Khuman Singh and MACT No. 171/1994 by the parents of Nanu Ram were filed claiming a sum of Rs. 13,05,000/ - and Rs. 5,05,000/ - respectively as compensation for untimely death of said Khuman Singh and Nanu Ram.
(2.) THE claim was resisted by the Insurance Company as well as the owner and driver of the Jeep. The learned Tribunal after evidence was led by the claimants and no evidence was produced by the respondents including the Insurance Company, came to the conclusion that both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident. It also came to the conclusion that the defence taken by the Insurance Company was not supported by any evidence and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable for payment of the amount of compensation. Ultimately, it awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,30,800/ - for the death of Khuman Singh and Rs. 70,000/ - a lump sum amount, for the death of Nanu Ram. The learned Tribunal also held that for the payment of compensation, the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the Jeep and tractor were equally responsible. Feeling aggrieved by the award, these appeals have been preferred. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that both the vehicles were equally responsible for occurrence of the accident, it was incumbent for the Tribunal to thereafter apportion the liability and in absence thereof the award deserves to be set aside and/or in any case the same deserves to be modified to the extent that both the owners of the vehicles be held responsible 50:50. It was also submitted that it was apparent from the record that the Jeep was being plied in violation of the policy conditions and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the award impugned and has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and Ors., reported at : 2008 ACJ 1165.;