1. - Since the misc. appeals and cross objections relate to award dated 12.12.2002 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhunjhunu (in short MACT) in MACT Case No. 340/1999, they are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. The facts in brief are that on 21.6.1999 at 5.30 A.M. the truck No. RJ 18G 0052 met with an accident while returning from Chirana, on the main public road near the agricultural field of Jeevan Singh, Sarpanch of village Bagora. In the accident one Sultan Singh, died and one Ram Chandra got injured. Sultan and Ramchandra both were travelling in the truck as labourer. The truck is said to have collided with a boundary wall and thus turned round. Two separate claim petitions were filed, one for the deceased Sultan Singh by his mother and Smt. Mali Devi and Shopal and another by the injured Ram Chandra. The claim petition filed by the Ram Chandra was registered as Claim Petition No. 340/1999. According to the claimant the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. In the claim petition filed by Ramchandra, he claimed compensation in the amount of Rs. 10,60,000 for the injuries received by him.

4. The owner and driver of the vehicle filed reply, denying the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. They denied all the pleadings made in the claim petition. They denied the age and income of the deceased and injured and stated that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Sampat Lal. According to the owner and driver, the truck turned round due to pits on the road; the staring rod of the vehicle was broken and as a result of which the steering control could not be continued by the driver and therefore the truck was turned towards road side and turned round. The driver was driving the vehicle carefully and with a slow speed.

5. The Insurance Company filed a separate reply to the claim petitions, wherein the accident was denied. It was also denied that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The insurance admitted the insurance of the vehicle with it. It was further pleaded that the driver and the owner of the vehicle committed breach of the insurance policy hence the Insurance Company is not liable.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the MACT framed three issues :

1) Whether the driver of the truck Sampat Lal was driving the truck rashly and negligently on 21.6.1999 and as a result of which the accident took place wherein Sultan Singh died and Ram Chandra sustained injuries?

2) whether for the objections raised by the insurance company, the Insurance Company is not liable?

3) What compensation the claimants are entitled?

4) Relief.

7. In support of the claim petition, the claimants examined three witnesses AW-1 Shopal, AW-2 Ramchandra and AW-3 Nagar and also submitted documentary evidence and exhibited 34 documents. The Insurance Company examined NAW-1 Satyaveer Yadav and NAW-2 J.K. Jain. The Insurance Company also produced documentary evidence of register of issuing of the driving licence, as Ex. 1. The MACT decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. As far as issue No. 2 with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned the MACT held that on the date of accident i.e. 21.6.1999 the driving licence of the driver Sampat Lal was not renewed and the vehicle was being driven by a person whose licence was not renewed on the date of accident and thus the Insurance Company was not liable for the liability. With regard to issue No. 3 in case of Ramchandra it was held that he has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 15% but it was not proved that the aforesaid disability is hampering his day to day life. The claimant Ramchandra has been awarded Rs. 25,000