JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has validly been served upon the respondents, yet no one turns up on behalf of the respondents. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondents.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.01.2014 passed by the District Judge 1st-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. No.13 of 2010 by which the learned Tribunal in an application filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act has directed the opposite party nos.3 and 4 to pay Rs.6,09,700/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount, from the date of filing of suit to the claimants, in respect of the death of the deceased Sonia Devi caused by a motor vehicle accident and Rs.2,90,000/- to the claimant no.1 for permanent disability sustained by him along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim.

4. The brief facts of the case is that on 14.08.2009 at about 10:15 A.M. while the claimant no.1-respondent no.1 along with his wife being the deceased- Sonia Devi were going on a motorcycle, the offending truck being rashly and negligently driven dashed the motorcycle causing injuries to the deceased- Sonia Devi and the claimant no.1- respondent no.1. While the deceased- Sonia Devi succumbed to the injuries, during the course of her treatment at Bokaro General Hospital and the claimant no.1- respondent no.1 got serious injuries and was also admitted in Bokaro General Hospital. He was discharged only on 18.12.2009. The claimant no.1 Kartik Manjhi became permanently disabled and the motorcycle was also badly damaged.

5. In the learned Tribunal, both the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle appeared and opposed the claim petition and pleaded that the driver of the truck has got valid driving licence which was valid up to 29.01.2011. The opposite party nos.3 and 4 being the appellant no.1 and 2- insurance company before this Court opposed the prayer for grant of compensation and pleaded that the permanent disability of the claimant no.1- respondent no.1 has not caused any loss of his earnings.

6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :-

(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Have the claimants valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the deceased Soniya Devi died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.JH- 02L-8420?

(iv) Whether truck bearing Regd. No.JH-02L-8420 had valid insurance policy, permit on the date of accident?

(v) Whether the driver of the motorcycle bearing Regd. No.JH-09F- 7828 had valid driving license and insurance policy?

(vi) Whether there was contributory negligence between truck bearing Regd. No.JH-02L-8420 and motorcycle bearing Regd. No.JH09f-7828?

(vii) Whether the injured Kartik Manjhi became permanently disabled in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing. No.JH-02L-8420?

(viii) To which any other relief or reliefs the claimants are entitled too?

(ix) Whether the petitioner are liable for compensation to what extent and from whom?

7. In support of their case, the claimant-respondents altogether examined one witness and proved the documents which have been marked Exts. 1 to 12 whereas from the side of the opposite party nos.3 and 4, two witnesses were examined and the opposite party nos.3 and 4 also proved the documents which were marked Ext. A to D.

8. The learned Tribunal first took up issue nos. (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) together and after considering the evidence both documentary and oral came to the conclusion that the deceased- Sonia Devi died in the motor vehicle accident and the claimant no.1- Kartik Manjhi also received grievous injury due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. The learned Tribunal further held that the driver of the offending truck was having a valid and effective driving licence at th