J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) THE instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants -claimants Nos. 1, 2 & 3 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 3.12.2007 passed by the MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in claim case No. 370/2007, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed granting total compensation of Rs. 5,10,960/ - under the different counts in favour of the claimant -appellants.
(2.) THE brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that two claim petitions separately came to be filed by Kamal Singh before the Tribunal in respect of same incident, in which he received injuries and his wife Uma Choudhary @ Urmila Choudhary died in the same accident, which took place on 20.3.2005, therefore, they were clubbed together and heard and decided by the impugned award. It was alleged that on the fateful day i.e. 20.3.2005 when claimant Kamal Singh along with his wife were coming on their feet on the left side of the road from Taruchhaya Colony to Tonk Road and when they reached at about 8:00 O' Clock in the late evening in front of Pink City Garden then at that time, a vehicle Crane bearing No. R.J. -14 -E -1055 came from Taruchhaya Colony side, and was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant and his wife from back side due to which both of them received serious injuries and during the course of treatment Smt. Uma @ Urmila Choudhary died in the hospital. The claimant in Para No. 25 of his claim petition claimed a compensation of Rs. 7,10,000/ - on account of his injuries and Rs. 89,05,000/ - on account of death of his wife in the accident payable by the driver of the crane (non -petitioner No. 1), the owner of the Crane (non -petitioner No. 2) and the insurance company (non -petitioner No. 3) with whom the vehicle was insured. The non -petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 despite notice did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore, ex parte proceedings were drawn against them. However, the Insurance Company while filing the reply to claim petition stated that it is necessary to prove whether the driver of the said vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident or not? It is contended that the owner of the offending vehicle did not inform about the accident to the Insurance Company thereby violating the conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. However, it was admitted by the Insurance Company that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with them and while denying the rest of averments made in the claim petition due to lack of knowledge prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.
(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues including the issue of relief. The claimants in support of their claim produced A.D.1 Kamal Singh, A.D.2 Dr. Rajesh Vyas and got exhibited 128 documents in documentary evidence. In defence the Insurance Company got recorded statement of N.A.W.1 R.K. Chawala. The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the counsel and perusing the material available on record passed the impugned award allowed a total claim of Rs. compensation of Rs. 5,10,960/ - as compensation in favour of the claimants. Hence this appeal.;