Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) THE genesis of these two cross -appeals is the impugned award dated 14th of October 2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Bhilwara.
(2.) APPELLANTS , in both the appeals, feeling dismayed with the impugned award, preferred these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') for seeking redressal of their respective grievances. Appellant -insurer in CMA No. 141/15 has shown its discontentment for the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal by categorizing the same as excessive besides assailing finding on other issues, whereas appellant -claimants in CMA No. 34/15 have ventilated their grievances against the impugned award seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on fateful day of 21st of May 2009 at 11:30 AM, when son of claimants Omprakash, aged 11 years, was on his way from home towards a pond at village Baseda for taking bath, a tractor bearing No. RJ -06 -RA -1039, coming from behind, hit him. The impact of the tractor on the person of Omprakash was so severe that the same caused grave and serious injuries on his head and other body parts, and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. Attributing rash and negligent driving to the driver of the tractor for cause of accident, the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal quantifying total amount of compensation as Rs. 16,51,000. In order to work out the said amount of compensation, claimants have pleaded that, at the time of death, deceased Omprakash was pursuing his studies and his untimely death has dashed their all hopes of a secured life during the evening phase of their life with the earnings of the deceased.
(3.) THE claim is contested by owner and driver of the vehicle as well as by the insurer. The driver and owner of the vehicle in their return have completely repudiated the theory of rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle and submitted that deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence of accident. The insurer, while refuting the age of the deceased, has pleaded in the return that as per autopsy report he was 9 years old only and consequently averred in the return that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant for which they are not entitled. A specific plea is also raised in the reply that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and as such it is a case of violation of the terms of insurance policy and liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on the insurer. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the rival pleadings, settled four issues for determination.;