JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 01.02.2019 passed in the claim petition bearing No. 61 of 24.11.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the claimants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 55,29,500/- and the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that Kuldip Singh (son of the claimants) was 28 years old at the time of his death and was getting salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. On 02.09.2015 Kuldip Singh (since deceased) was returning to village Tehnga from village Phillaur on motorcycle bearing registration no. PB-08-DC-2071 driven by his friend Gurdeep Singh. At about 10:00 pm, when they reached near village Garha, a truck was coming from the opposite side. The said truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent no.1 Gurdeep Singh was driving the motorcycle also at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing the truck, he could not control the motorcycle and motorcycle hit into the said truck. The accident took place on account of composite negligence of respondent No.1 and the driver of the truck. However, the driver of truck immediately moved away with the truck in question and even the registration number of the truck could not be noted. On account of the accident, both the occupants of the motorcycle fell down on the road and received multiple injuries. Kuldip Singh succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed their separate written replies denying the factum of accident and compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

'1. Whether Kuldip Singh son of Sh. Balvir Singh suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 02.09.2015 at about 10 pm, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Phillaur, due to rash and negligent driving of Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-08DC-2071 by Gurdeep Singh respondent No. 1, to which he succumbed? OPP.

2. Whether the claimants/petitioners are entitled to recover any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Whether the Tribunal does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present claim petition? OPR

5. Whether respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR

6. Whether terms and conditions of the policy were violated, if so its effect? OPR

7. Whether the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPR

8. Relief.'

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However, the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the accident occurred solely on the negligence of the truck driver, therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the case of composite negligence. He further contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, he prays that the appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 argues on the lines of the award. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.

9. Before proceeding further, it is important to reproduce the relevant portion of the award, which reads as under:-

'ISSUES NO. 1 & 2

9 Since these issues are interconnected, therefore the same are being taken up together to avoid repeti