J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) THESE two civil misc. appeals have been filed by the different appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the impugned common award dated 3.9.2008 passed by the MACT and Addl. District Judge (F.T.) No. 1, Beawar in claim cases Nos. 386/2007 (591/2004) & 387/2007 (592/2004), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 74,800/ - and Rs. 031,200/ - as compensation holding liability of payment of compensation of the Insurance Company.
(2.) THE brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that two separate claim petitions under Section 140/166 of the M.V. Act came to be filed by the claimants (husband & wife) in respect of the same incident/accident before the Tribunal, which were heard together and decided by a common order by the Tribunal. It is alleged in the claim petitions that on 8.5.2004 when the claimants were coming from Kankrauli to Beawar on National Highway No. 8 in their Santro Car bearing No. R.J. -22 -C -3516 and when reached after Jassakhera at about 3:45 p.m. then non -petitioner No. 1 driver of Truck bearing No. R.J. -14 -C -4749, who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner collided with the Santro Car from wrong side and caused the accident and as a result of which the claimants husband and wife sustained simple and grievous injuries on their persons. It was alleged in the claim petition that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck in question. The incident of the accident was lodged at Police Station upon which FIR bearing No. 128/2004 was registered and after investigation police filed charge -sheet against driver non -petitioner No. 1 before the concerned court. It was claimed by the claimants that on account of this accident the non -petitioner No. 1 driver of the truck in question, non -petitioner No. 2 owner of the truck and non -petitioner No. 3 Insurance Company with whom the truck in question was insured are liable to be held responsible for paying the compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. It was further alleged due to the accident, the claimants suffered economically, mental and physical agony and also remained in hospital for treatment. Ex parte proceedings were drawn against non -petitioners Nos. 1 & 2. However, the non -petitioner No. 3 Insurance Company filed their reply denying therein the averments/allegations made in the claim petition and stated that the insurer did not inform the insurance company about the accident and also violated the conditions of the insurance policy. It was pleaded that at the time of accident the vehicle was not being driven on the valid permit under the control or under employment of the vehicle owner/insurer. It was also alleged that claimant Sunder Lal was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was further alleged in the reply that the driver of Santro Car bearing No. RJ -22 -C3516, owner of the car and insurance company with whom the car was insured were necessary parties and, therefore, the claim petitions deserves to be dismissed on account of non -joinder of necessary parties. It was further pleaded that driver of Santro Car Iqbal was driving the vehicle without following the traffic rules and accident took place due to the fault on part of driver Iqbal and it was prayed while raising other legal objections to dismiss the claim petition.
(3.) THE Tribunal on the basis of above submissions framed as many as 7 issues including the issue of relief.;