DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been submitted by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident assailing the award dated 28th September, 1992 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banner in Claim Case No. 28/1989 in the sum of Rs. 1,74,000 in favour of the claimant -respondents for accidental death of their son Babulal 20 years in age, essentially on the ground of limit of its liability in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and not beyond.
(2.) AT about 12.30 p.m. on 27.12.1988 on Dhorimana to Candhav route near village Dabli the deceased Babulal, son of the claimants, while driving a Jonga bearing registration No. RJC 3815 sustained fatal injuries on being hit head -on by a truck bearing registration No. RNM 6609 driven by non -applicant No. 1 Shankerlal. Narrating the incident, parents of the deceased Babulal submitted the present claim application with the averments that Babulal was 20 years in age earning Rs. 650 per month and contributing Rs. 550 per month to the parents and claimed Rs. 1,98,000 for the loss of contribution for 30 years. The claimants also claimed non -pecuniary loss at Rs. 50,000 and transportation and funeral expenses at Rs. 2,000 and thereby claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck. The owner of the truck Chandra Ram submitted by way of an application that he has already sold the truck to one Ghewarlal on 28th February, 1987 and executed sale letter and all the instalments were also paid by 11th March, 1989 and, therefore, the proceedings be dropped against him. However, it appears from perusal of record that such application was rejected on 2nd September, 1989 for want of prosecution and then the case though proceeded ex parte against in the reply filed before the Tribunal on 24th March, 1990, purportedly on behalf of non -applicant No. 1 driver Shankerlal, apart from the said driver Shankerlal, an alleged power of attorney of the owner has also signed and verified the contents of reply. It has been contended that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the Jonga driver by hitting against the stationary truck. The insurer, non -applicant No. 3 in its separate reply while denying the claim averments admitted the factum of insurance but submitted that the deceased Babulal was not having a valid driving licence and that the accident was caused by the deceased taking extra passengers in the Jonga and loosing balance and hitting against the oncoming truck. It has been averred that the truck was not having permit and fitness and, therefore, policy conditions were violated.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination of the questions arising in the case: Hindi matter omitted;