Manak Mohta, J. - (1.) BY this appeal, the claimant -appellants have challenged validity and propriety of the judgment and Award dt. 01.02.2007 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T. Nagaur in MACT Case No. 59/2005, whereby, he awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/ - with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 26.09.2005 in favour of the claimants.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 11.08.2005 at about 9.15 PM while Vinod aged 15 years was going on his cycle from Railway Station, Nagaur to his house at Basni Railway Crossing Gate then a Truck bearing No. RJ -18G/2962, which was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed by its driver Kurda Ram (respondent No. 1), was coming from Manasar Chouraha towards Railway Station just infront of the Bungalow of Sub - Divisional Magistrate, hit the cycle rider Vinod, as a result of which, he fell down and got crushed under the wheels of the offending truck and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The police also registered a case of this accident against the truck driver and after investigation filed a challan against him in the Court for rash and negligent driving and causing accident. A total sum of Rs. 32,46,000/ - were claimed as compensation under different heads. It was asserted in the claim petition that deceased Vinod, at the relevant time, was doing the private job of accounts on Computer and in total was getting Rs. 6000/ - per month and he was having good knowledge of computer work. It was alleged that due to untimely death in accident, the parents suffered loss of income as well as suffered loss of love, services and affection. It was further submitted that deceased used to pay total earnings to the claimants but due to his death, they have been deprived of it. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are said to be owner and insurer of the Truck as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck, in which, Vinod lost his life. Thus, it was stated that the driver and owner of the truck as well as the insurer of the Truck are jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation. A prayer was made to award reasonable and just compensation.
(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 has filed reply to the claim petition denying the responsibility of causing accident and further stated that the deceased himself was negligent in driving bicycle and due to that, the accident occurred. It was also stated in the reply that the deceased was not an earning member and looking to the age of the deceased, the claimant -appellants could not be said to be dependent upon the income of the deceased. The exorbitant compensation has been claimed, as such, they were not entitled to get any sort of compensation. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the truck was insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, if any liability of compensation arises then the Insurance Company will be liable to pay compensation to the claimants. No separate reply was filed by the owner of the truck (respondent No. 2).;