JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation of Rs. 8,26,856/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (in short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 9.9.2013.

2. That appellants No.1 and 2/claimants No.1 and 2 are parents and appellant No.3/claimant No.3 is brother of deceased Anit. On 17.5.2011, deceased was travelling along with Krishan on a motorcycle No.HR-35-E-3315, which was driven by Udaiveer. They were followed by Rajesh Kumar, who was driving another motorcycle. When they reached near turn of village Meghot Binja, car No.HR-35E-3401, which was driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent-Hari Singh came from the side of Narnaul at a very high speed and struck against motorcycle of Anit. As a result of said accident Anit sustained injuries and died. The accident was witnessed by Rajesh Kumar and FIR was registered against respondent-Hari Singh for causing the aforesaid accident. The offending car was owned by respondent-Dharampal Yadav and was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. The deceased was 22 years of age and was working as a Compounder in Yadav Eye Hospital, Narnaul and his monthly salary was Rs. 8,000/- and he was also doing the business of dairy and was also agriculturist and as such used to earn additional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. That the deceased was bachelor and the claimants were dependent on his income. The claimants claimed that compensation worth Rs. 20 lac along with interest be awarded to them.

3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents and respondents No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement wherein they denied the factum of accident and they further pleaded that false FIR was registered against respondent-Hari Singh.

4. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of the insurance company taking preliminary objections that at the time of alleged accident driver of the offending car was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the car was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On merits, it was denied that car in question was involved in any accident as alleged by the claimants. The other averments of the claim petition were denied being wrong.

5. Injured Udaiveer also filed separate claim petition against the respondents and both the claim petitions were jointly tried by the Tribunal.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether Anit Kumar son of Man Singh and petitioner Udaiveer sustained injuries in a road side accident which took place on 17.5.2011 in the area of village Meghot Binja (Police Station Nangal Chaudhary) due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, the driver of car bearing registration No.HR-35E-3401? OPP

2. To what amount of compensation, if any, and from whom the claimants are entitled ? OPP.

3. Whether respondent No.1 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence, if so to what effect? OPR-3.

4. Relief.

7. The claimants examined PW-1 Chanderkanta-mother of the deceased, PW-2 Udaiveer who was driving ill-fated motorcycle at the time of accident, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar another eye-witness, PW-4 Suman Kumar, PW-5 Dr. Pankaj Aggarwal and PW-6 Umesh Kumar and tendered into evidence documents copy of voter card Ex.PX, Ration card Ex.PY, 10+2 certificate Ex.PZ, matriculation certificate of deceased Ex. PQ and medical bills Ex. P1 to Ex. P27 of injured-Udaiveer.

8. Owner and driver of the offending car tendered documents Ex. R1 to Ex.R3. However, no evidence was led by insurance company.

9. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation wo