J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) THE instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants -claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 6.10.2007 passed by the MACT, Behror, District, Alwar, in claim case No. 49/2006, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 3,19,840/ - in favour of the claimants.
(2.) THE brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that two claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal in respect of same incident/accident in which two persons namely Vijaypal husband of Smt. Nirmla Devi and Ramanand @ Ramu husband of Smt. Sharda (present claimant) died. It was alleged that on 24.5.2004 in the after noon at about 12 O' Clock Vijaypal along with Ramanand @ Ramu were going to Bansur on a Motor Cycle bearing No. R.J.02 -3M -2665, after Dantali Hill, Vijaypal drove the motor cycle on Kuchcha road, at that time a Jeep bearing No. R.J.14/1C/6621 came from Bansur side which was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit Vijaypal and Ramanand @ Ramu, who were sitting on Motor Cycle due to which Vijaypal and Ramanand @ Ramu died. The report of the accident was lodged at Police Station, Bansur on which Cr. Case No. 137/2004 for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304 -A IPC was registered and after investigation challan was presented before the court. It was averred that at the time of accident deceased Ramanand @ Ramu was aged 32 years, who was healthy young man and was a skilled labour in furniture work and himself was running a furniture shop from which he earned Rs. 9000/ - per month. The claimants of deceased Ramanand @ Ramu claimed a sum of Rs. 40,46,000/ - as compensation on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Jeep bearing No. R.J.14/1C/6621 and caused accident in which Ramanand died. The non -petitioners Nos. 1, 2 did not appear before the Tribunal despite service on them, therefore, ex parte proceeding were drawn against them. However, the non -petitioner No. 3 Insurance Company filed their reply separately in both the claim petitions in which they denied the averments made in the claim petitions. It was stated that the monthly income of the deceased as stated in the claim petition is arbitrary, false and baseless and exorbitantly mentioned. It was alleged that the said accident has been occurred on account of accident with another vehicle bearing No. R.J.14/C -6104 and that was also seized and there is no connection of Jeep bearing No. R.J.14/1C/6621 with the accident and, therefore, claim petition is not maintainable. It was stated that the non -petitioners are neither responsible for the said accident nor they are entitled to pay the compensation. It was also stated that the owner of the insured vehicle has not informed the Insurance Company about the accident, therefore, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. The alleged vehicle was being driven by the driver who was possessing a learning licence, whereas it was mandatory and necessary condition in the insurance policy that the driver of the insured vehicle should possess a valid and effective licence. Therefore, on violation of the conditions of the insurance policy they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. In the preliminary objection it was stated that the owner of motor cycle bearing No. R.J.02/3M -2665 and insurance company of the said motor cycle have not been made party to the claim petition, therefore, in absence of necessary parties, the claim petitions are liable to be dismissed and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues including the issue of relief. The claimants in order to prove their claims produced A.D.1 Nirmla Devi @ Barfi, A.D. 2 Satishchandra, A.D. 3 Sharda Devi and A.D. 4 Ramavtar as witnesses in their claim petitions and got exhibited as many as 41 documents in documentary evidence. The non -petitioners did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the counsel and perusing the material available on record passed the impugned award granting compensation of Rs. 3,19,840/ - in favour of the claimants in the present case. Hence this appeal.;