MOHTA, J. - (1.) THESE two Misc. Appeals, namely, 48/1995, and 69/1995 have arisen out of single accident for which claim case Nos. 64/94 (2/93) and 72/94 (1/93) respectively were preferred by the present claimants before the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi, District Jodhpur who vide his judgment and award dated 26. 9. 1994 decided the claims petitions by a common judgment and awarded Rs. 40,000/- as compensation in each case. Since in these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, these appeals were being heard together to maintain uniformity and convenience of judgment and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 2. 12. 1992 at about 1:40 p. m. while Ruchit Kothari and his classmate Chandra Shekhar Soni were going on their cycle from the main gate of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi towards National Highway No. 15 (which leads from Jaisalmer to Bikaner), at that time, a truck bearing No. RRF-5641, which was coming from the side of Jaisalmer and was going towards Bikaner and was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed by its driver i. e. , Chatra Ram (respondent No. 1), dashed against the cycle riders, as a result of which Ruchit Kothari (aged 13 years) and Chandra Shekhar Soni (aged 11 years) both got crushed under the wheels of the offending truck and they succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The police also registered a case against the truck driver and after investigation filed a challan against him. A total sum of Rs. 12,02,250/- and Rs. 12,01,000/- were claimed as compensation under different heads in respect of claim petition No. 64/94 (2/93) and claim petition No. 72/94 (1/93) respectively. It was averred in the claim petitions that Ruchit Kothari and Chandra Shekhar Soni, at the relevant point of time, were aged 13 years and 11 years respectively and were the students of 8th standard. They were having outstanding record in their studies and both of them used to maintain first division throughout. It was further averred in the claim petitions that they also used to participate in sports and extra-curricular activities. It was also averred that the appellant-claimants had planned status of Ruchit Kothari and Chandra Shekhar Soni in such a way that they would have either become engineer or doctor in the years to come and would have earned atleast Rs. 5000/- per month and would have contributed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to claimant-appellants. It was alleged that due to untimely death in accident, they suffered loss of income as well as suffered loss of love and affection. In the claim petitions, it was stated that the driver and owner of the truck are respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 is the insurer of truck and prayed that the claim be awarded against them. In both the claim petitions, the replies were submitted by respondents No. 1 and 2, wherein it was stated that respondent No. 1 was not negligent in driving the truck but as a matter of fact, the deceased-persons were negligent in driving bicycle and due to that, the accident occurred. It was also stated in the reply that the deceased- persons were not earning members. The claimant-applicants were not dependent on deceased. The exorbitant compensations have been claimed, as such they were not entitled for any sort of compensation from them. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the truck was insured with respondent No. 3. If any liability to pay compensation arose then respondent No. 3 is liable. In replies submitted by Insurance Company, the factum of truck being insured with Company was admitted. It was further stated that the driver of truck was not having a valid and effective driving licence and no intimation with regard to accident, was given to the Company, which was in violation of terms and conditions of policy. Thus, respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation. On the basis of pleadings of parties six common issues were framed in each case by the learned Tribunal. Issue No. 1 was with regard to rash and negligent driving of the Truck, Issue No. 2 was with regard to quantum of compensation, if any payable to the claimants, Issue No. 3 was framed with regard to contributory negligence and other issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were framed on the defence pleas taken by the respondent No. 3. After framing of the issues, the learned Tribunal tried both the claim cases jointly and decided by a common judgment and award dated 26. 9. 1994.
(3.) DURING trial, in claim case No. 64/94 (2/93), PW 1 Lokesh Chandra, PW 2 Pram Prakash, PW 3 Pawan Kumar and PW 4 Laxman were examined and the claimants produced and exhibited documents as Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/23. In claim case No. 72/94 (1/93), PW 1 Damodar, PW 2 Pram Prakash, PW 3 Pawan Kumar and PW 4 Laxman were examined and the claimants produced and exhibited documents as Exhibit-P/i to Exhibit-P/23. From the side of defence in both the claim cases, respondent No. 1-Charta Ram (driver of truck) was examined as DW-1. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver resulting in death of Ruchit and Chandra Shekhar. The learned Tribunal turned down the contention of contributory negligence and awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the claimants of each case with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant-appellants have filed these appeals. ;