Hon'ble TOTLA, J.—Above two appeals, first by claimants for also holding insurer liable and quashing order to pay part of compensation to father and brothers of deceased l and other by owner for holding insurer liable to pay, arise out of the same judgment, so are being decided together.

2. On 31.10.88, at about 10.45 p.m., Shri Madan Gopal, on a public way, was hit by car No. RSK 2700, resulting death due to injuries sustained compensation claim by wife, two minor sons, two minor daughters, parents of two brothers. Allowed and awarded, accepted by the tribunal for Rs.2,86,680/- and interest and in relation to award are the appeals.

3. Relevant brief facts, per claimants, are that Shri Madan Gopal, 30 years, at the relevant time, was employed in government hospital as ward boy – was getting salary about Rs.750/- who also employed as home guard, used to get allowance Rs.15/- per day. On that day, deceased, along with three other home guards, reporting at police station and than riding on cycle, was going to duty place at food corporation. Then, on Suratgarh road, a car fastly and negligently driven, came and struck cycle, made Madan Gopal fell down, than car speedily escaped and injured admitted to hospital, where succumbed in evening on 1.11.88. Averred that FIR No.178/88 was registered on 1.11.88 on complaint of Chandi Prasad and that the vehicle owned by Roop Chand, was given for repairs at workshop of mistry Babulal and one Shri Bobby @ Balvinder Singh as such and worker employee of mistry on his behest was driving the vehicle. For earning Rs.1230/- per month, estimating loss for 30 years, Rs.10,42,800/- and deducting Rs.42,800/- for own expenses of deceased, Rs.75,000/- for pain, agony, deprivation of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for expenses, claimed compensation Rs.10,80,000/-.

4. Owner Shri Roop Chand asserted that the vehicle for substantial repair and body work given to and was with Babulal and he did not know of any accident and also when driven by whom. The owner, accepting the deceased to be employed as above, asserted that the deceased fast moving cycle on, was chasing the car and cycle striking, he fell down.

5. Said repairer respondent mistry Babulal replied that he since a day earlier, was away to Delhi and not in know of any accident and the vehicle when driven by whom, and that named person Bobby at that time or ever was not in his employment. Stated vehicle if driven by anyone, was not under instructions.

6. Bobby @ Balwinder Singh replied denying all – stated that he neither driving, nor involved in accident and falsely implicating him, is charge-sheet against him for the offence.

7. Appellant insurance company, denying claim petition averments, stated that per claimants themselves, the vehicle was not driven by a person in control or supervision of employer and that even if the vehicle was for repair at workshop during which any accident occurred, still insurer not responsible. Also asserted that insurer was never informed of such accident which is mandatory and that so stated driver did not possess valid driving license.

8. Compensation was claimed from owner, repairer mistry, said driver and the insurer.

9. Issues seven were framed relate to questions if incident occurred due to negligence of the said driver and caused is death in accident – dependency of claimants and necessity of succession certificate – relation of said repairer and compensation quantum. Issue No.6 is regarding whether vehicle owner did not inform insurer and if so, to what effect. Issue No.7 is whether vehicle driver had a valid license – if not, effect thereto.

10. On behalf of the claimants, evidence is wife of deceased, father, police officer Sandeep Prasad, and Chandi Prasad who, per him, was with the deceased and lodged first information report. In defence are statements of owner Roop Chand and said driver Bobby @ Balwinder. For insurance company are statements of administrative officer. Placed on record and exhibited are certain co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document