The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of the insurance company, driver, and owner in a motor vehicle accident, as well as the principles governing the calculation of compensation in such cases.

Judgment

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

These are four appeals, filed to assail two Awards of even date i.e. 19.03.2013, arising from the same accident, which took place on 04.01.2012, which resulted into death of two persons, namely Sewak Singh and Karnail Singh.

2. M.A.C. No.9 of 01.05.2012 was filed by Narinder Kaur and others, vis-a-vis death of Sewak Singh, in the accident in question, whereas, M.A.C. No.14 of 03.05.2012 was filed by Jaswinder Kaur and others, vis-a-vis, death of Karnail Singh, in the same accident.

3. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the compensation was granted in both the aforesaid claim petitions.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the Award so passed, the claimants of both the aforesaid claim petitions have filed the appeals for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. FAO-3146-2013 relates to the death of Sewak Singh, whereas, FAO-3147-2013 relates to the death of Karnail Singh.

6. FAO-3963-2013 and FAO-3964-2013 have been filed by the Insurance Company to dispute about the factum of accident, involvement of the vehicle in question, as well as raising plea of contributory negligence and further also, on the count of liability, solely fastened upon the insurance company.

7. For the convenience of the discussion, the parties are referred to as making appearance before the Tribunal.

8. The facts germane to be noticed are as follows:-

That, on 04.01.2012, Sewak Singh along with Karnail Singh, while being occupants of car bearing registration No.PB-10CA-3813, were coming from Faridkot to Bathinda. The aforesaid car was driven by Sewak Singh on the extreme left side of the road. At about 2.00-2.15 p.m, when they crossed Baba Rode Shah Majar, Faridkot, a truck bearing registration No.HR-03GA-0469, being driven by respondent No.1-Jagmeet Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and struck against their car, as a result whereof, both the occupants of the aforesaid car, sustained multiple injuries, which proved fatal. Sewak Singh had died during the course of the day. Karnail Singh was got admitted in the hospital and succumbed to the injuries on 27.01.2012. The said accident was witnessed by Sukhpal Singh s/o Arjan Singh. Regarding the accident, FIR No.4 dated 05.01.2012 under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered with Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot.

9. Further, in the claim petition relating to death of Sewak Singh, it was averred that Sewak Singh was 52 years old. He had retired from Indian Army as Sub. Major and was drawing a monthly pension of Rs.15,768/- and thereafter, he was working as Welfare Worker at District Sainik Welfare Office, Bathinda and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.23,000/-. The claimants were dependent upon the deceased.

10. In the claim petition relating to death of Karnail Singh, it was asserted that Karnail Singh was 52 years old. He had retired from Indian Army as Captain and was drawing a monthly pension of Rs.18,221/-. After retirement, he was working as Welfare Worker at District Sainik Welfare Office, Bathinda and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. All the claimants were dependent upon the deceased.

11. In reply, respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner) had disputed the maintainability of the petition and also challenged the locus standi to file the claim petitions. Besides the same, it was also averred that no accident ever took place with their truck. They have been falsely involved in this case, in order to get compensation and false case has been registered against them. Thus, a prayer was made for dismissal of the claim petitions.

12. Respondent No.3-The New India Assurance Company in the separate reply alleged that driver of the truck bearing registration No.HR-03GA-0469 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of alleged accident. In fact, respondent No.2 was not holding a valid registration certificate and route permit of the truck in question. As such, respondents No.1 and 2 have violated the terms and condi