JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

This order shall dispose of FAO-5195-2016 ( Bhateri v. Jaimal & others) and FAO-7711-2016 (Jagdish Chander & another v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & another) as both the appeals have arisen from a common award dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak in MACT Case No.76 of 2015.

2. FAO-5195-2016 has been filed by the appellant-claimant for modification of award dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant invoking the provisions of section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the 1988 Act') was partly allowed and she was awarded a compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, on account of death of her son, namely, Sonu in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 20.07.2015.

3. FAO-7711-2016 has been filed by the appellants (driver and owner respectively) of the offending vehicle seeking modification of the award dated 10.03.2016 and to absolve their liability by setting aside the award qua them.

4. The relevant facts are that Sonu (since deceased) son of the appellant/claimant-Bhateri was employed as Helper on a light transport vehicle bearing registration No.HR-46C/9092 make Tata Ace. On 20.07.2015, Sonu along with one Satish (owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-46C/9092) were going to Meham from Hansi in the said vehicle. Satish was driving the vehicle and Sonu was seated by his side. At about 10:00 A.M. when they reached near Pipula bridge within the area of Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar, a truck bearing registration No.HR- 55F/1965 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by its driver Jaimal/respondent No.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and hit their vehicle. Resultantly, Sonu and Satish sustained multiple grievous injuries and were taken to General Hospital Meham. Due to serious condition of Sonu, he was then referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, where he succumbed to his injuries on the next day. It was pleaded that at the time of his death, Sonu was 27 years old and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. His mother was dependant upon him. In view of these averments, an amount of Rs.40 lakhs as compensation was claimed by the claimant from respondents No.1 to 3 being driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. After notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared (owner and driver respectively) and filed joint written statement denying the factum of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question and submitted that no accident was caused by respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle.

6. Respondent No.3/insurance company also denied the factum of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and pleaded that no accident was caused by respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. It was also pleaded that respondent No.1 was neither holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident nor the vehicle in question was being driven in terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were settled. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence to discharge the onus behind the issues upon them.

8