- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE five appeals, arise out of one accident and are directed against the common judgment/award dated 12.7.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District Jaipur, therefore, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The claimants filed four applications for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District Jaipur in respect of death of Baldev Nath, Dhani Ram and Gargi Dullam, and one injured namely; Kamal Kumar. Their claim applications were registered as Motor Accident Claims Case Nos. 345/93, 346/93, 811/93 and 343/1986. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 35,000/- in favour of the claimants Shefali and Others in respect of death of Baldev Nath, Rs. 81,900/- in favour of the claimants Krishandhan Dutt and Others in respect of death of Dhani Ram, Rs. 2,38,000/- in favour of the claimants Tapi Dullam in respect of death of Gargi Dullam and Rs. 42,000/- in favour of injured claimant Kamal Kumar. Being aggrieved with the same, the claimants filed four appeals in this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas one appeal i.e., SB CMA No. 8 of 1994 has been filed on behalf the Insurance Company on the ground that their liability to indemnify the amount of compensation was limited up to Rs.1,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants appellant Mr. Sandeep Mathur, contended only two submissions: one about the composite negligence and second about deduction on account of lump sum payment. His contention is that this is a case, wherein there was collision in between the Truck and Car. The deceased and injured person were travelling in the Car. The Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 to the effect that the Truck driver was responsible up to 70%, whereas the Car driver up to 30% for this accident. He contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal is contrary to the settled proposition of law about composite negligence. He also contended that while making a lump sum payment, the Tribunal committed an illegality in deducting amount of 20% in the case of appellant Krishnandhan Dutt and 40% in the case of Tapi Dullam on account of lump sum payment. He contended that the controversy in this regard has now been resolved by the Supreme Court and no deduction is liable to be made on account of lump sum payment thereof. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deducting the amount on account of contributory negligence and lump sum payment, as mentioned above.
(3.) SO far as the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is concerned, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the copy of the Insurance Policy was placed on record, whereby, it was clear that their liability was limited up to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal committed an illegality in holding that the Insurance Policy in this case is not proved, as only a carbon copy of it was produced. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that mere filing a carbon copy of the Insurance Policy is not sufficient. The said policy has not been proved by any one on behalf of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in deciding this issue against the insurance company. In alternative, he contended that this is a case, wherein the insurance company accepted Rs. 240/- as extra premium for its unlimited liability, which is clear from the carbon copy of the insurance policy also, therefore, there was unlimited liability of the insurance company to indemnify the amount of compensation. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of the Tribunal. ;