P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved by inadequacy of compensation awarded by judgment and award dated 5th of April, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), in lieu of accidental death of their bachelor son Mahendra Singh, the parents, appellant-claimants No.1 and 2 along with another minor son Devendra Singh, have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').
(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that appellant- claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act before learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.67,50,000/-. It is inter-alia averred in the claim petition that on the fateful day of 26 th June, 2011, at about 8 PM, deceased Mahendra Singh who had gone to Raipur and returning back in a Jeep, Tractor bearing Registration No.RJ-22-RA-2142 driven rashly and negligently hit the jeep in backside, as a result of which Mahendra Singh sustained grievious injuries and died. The incident was reported to police and thereupon FIR No.103/2011 was lodged at PS Raipur which eventually culminated into charge-sheet against first-respondent- driver of tractor. Quantifying the aforementioned amount of compensation, appellant-claimants pleaded that at the time of death of their bachelor son Mahendra Singh was earning Rs.12,000 per mensem by doing painting work at Delhi. It is also averred that out of his total income deceased was contributing a sum of Rs.9,000 to his family. With these pleadings, the appellants quantified the total aforesaid amount of compensation under different heads.
(3.) The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and they even denied the accident having taken place by their vehicle. But these respondents also pleaded in the return that their vehicle is falsely implicated in the matter. It was specifically stated that the tractor driver was holding a valid licence. The factum of vehicle being insured with third respondent-insurer is also incorporated in the reply.;