JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

By this common order, two appeals i.e., FAO-5298-2013 and FAO-4749-2014 shall be disposed of together as the present two appeals arise out of a common MACT award dated 06.08.2013 in MACT Case No. 131 of 2011 dated 08.11.2011 passed by Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Tribunal). FAO-5298- 2013 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurukshetra against the MACT award, while FAO-4749-2014 has been filed by the claimant for modification of award/judgment dated 06.08.2013 passed by Ld. Tribunal for seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, on account of suffering 100% of permanent disability by injured/victim/appellant in a motor vehicular accident. For the sake of convenience and brevity, facts extracted from FAO-5298-2013 are detailed hereafter.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the night of 10th August 2011, Dinesh Kumar along with his brothers and others, was travelling from Kurukshetra to Saharanpur in a Jeep registered as HR-99HV (TP)-5347. The vehicle, driven by Respondent No. 4 - Rakam Singh, collided with a parked truck registered as HR-46D-4414. The claimant alleges that the truck was parked dangerously in the middle of the road without parking lights, indicators, or safety measures. This resulted in a serious accident causing injuries to Rahul and Dinesh, who were then taken to LNJP Hospital. An FIR was registered against respondent No. 1 for violations of traffic rules and causing injuries.

3. Claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 and 140 of The MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 for seeking compensation before the Ld. Tribunal pleading that the Truck bearing No. HR-46D-4414 was parked by Respondent No. 1-driver of the offending truck in the middle of the road in a dangerous manner and without caring for traffic rules. Further, parking lights, indicators as well as reflectors of the offending vehicle were off and neither any stone, brick or branches of tree nor any fire was lit around the offending vehicle. Thus, it is the negligence of the Respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle that led to the accident.

4. After completion of the pleadings, Ld. Tribunal framed the issues, which are reproduced herebelow:

"I. Whether the accident in question took place on 11.08.2011 at about 0030hours in the area of Singla Rice Mill on Pipli-Ladwa Road under police station, Sadar Thanesar due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. HR-46 D-4414 by respondent No. 1 and it resulted in injuries to claimant? OPP

II. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, what extent of compensation the petitioner would be entitled to and from whom? OPP

III. Whether the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy were violated by Respondent No. 1 and insurance company. Is not liable to indemnify the compensation as alleged? OPR-3

IV. Relief."

5. For proving the issue No.1, Claimant examined Rahul Sharma as PW-1 who was the author of the FIR (Ex.P75) and he himself appeared as PW-3, and categorically deposed that it was the negligence of the Respondent No.1 - Driver of the offending truck which led to the accident and after submission of Report by police under section 173 Cr.P.C and framing of charges, Respondent No.1 - Driver of the offending truck is facing trial.

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Compa