Accident - Liability to pay - It was open to the claimants to claim compensation from either of the joint tort feasers - Next Accident - When the petition was under Section 163-A of the Act, question of rashness and negligence of any vehicle was immaterial.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 2022 of 2003 and F.A.O. No. 2279 of 2003 arising out of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda dated 26.02.2003. F.A.O. No. 2022 of 2003 has been filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the award of the Tribunal whereas F.A.O. No. 2279 of 2003 has been filed for enhancement of the compensation granted to the claimants.

2. The case set up by the claimants in the claim petition was that on 6.8.2001 at about 5.30/6 P.M. Chundamala Varkey Varkey along with co-driver Amandeep was on the main road of Model Town near railway Colony in Car No. DL-3C/5421. At that time Truck No. PB-3B-2728 came from Bhagu Raod side which was being driven by Yadwinder Singh rashly and negligently and at a fast speed. It went out of control and struck with the car, and as a result thereof, Chundamala Varkey Varkey received injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The car was extensively damaged. The said accident was witnessed by Constable Kanwalpreet Singh, Assistant M.H.C. in Police Post Civil Lines, Bathinda. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the truck vide F.I.R. No. 353 dated 6.8.2001 under Section 338, 427 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased Chundamala Varkey Varkey was 57 years of age and was a School Teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 5, MIL Station, Bathinda. His monthly income was Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claim was filed by the widow, sons and daughter of the deceased. The claimants on account of the death of the deceased Chundamala Varkey Varkey claimed compensation of Rs. 14 lacs along with interest @ 18% P.A.

4. The respondent No. 1 contested the claim by challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and try the said petition. The plea of estoppel against the claimants was also raised and an objection of non joinder of necessary party was also taken. It was alleged that the claimants had not come to the Court with clean hands. It was also asserted that a claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed against Yadwinder Singh, who was driver of the Truck No. PB-3B-2728 and the same was dismissed on 18th of January, 2002, whereas the present claim petition has been filed against the owner of Car No. DL-3C-5421 and the appellant insurance company. It was also pleaded by the respondent that the claim was highly excessive and ex-horbitant. It was further pleaded that as the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck Yadwinder Singh, petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. He, however, admitted that he was the owner of the car involved in the accident.

5. The insurance company filed a separate reply and took a stand that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. It was pleaded that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated as there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle in question. It was also pleaded that the claimants had concealed the material facts regrading petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver of the truck having been dismissed.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the claimants are legal heirs and legal representatives of deceased Chundamala Varkev Varkev? OPA

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, if so, to what extent and from Which of the respondents" OPA

3. Whether the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present claim petition? OPR

4. Whether the claimants are estopped from their act and conduct from filing the present petition?, OPR

5. Whether the claim petition is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties? OP.R

6. Whether the claim petitio