JUDGMENT : 

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.

1. This order shall dispose of above noted three appeals, as the same have emanated out of the same award.

2. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 31.10.2003 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.73 of 2002 decided by the MACT, Panipat (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.80,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants- Muzafar Khan and Habiba on account of death of their son Azam Khan alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

FAO No.628 of 2004 (O&M) FAO No.629 of 2004 (O&M)

3. These appeals have been instituted by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle against the afore-said award and by way of these appeals, they have challenged the findings of the Tribunal vide which recovery rights have been given to the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the insured/owner after payment of compensation to the victims.

4. Case of the petitioners is that on 22.06.1999, deceased- Azam Khan along with Abdul Rehman Khan, Mehmood, Illam Singh and Dharam Pal was coming from Titro to Panipat in canter bearing registration No.HR-12/6340. Canter was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and it went on the berms/ kacha path of the road near Sanoli and turned turtle. Azam Khan died at the spot and other occupants of the canter suffered injuries and they were got medically examined in Civil Hospital, Panipat. It is further submitted that deceased – Azam Khan was 27 years of age and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by taking the fruit orchards on contract. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was spent on transportation and last rites of the deceased. The claimants – Muzafar Khan and Habiba, being parents of the deceased claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000-.

5. Illam Singh – petitioner in connected claim petition was also travelling with the deceased- Azam Khan. He suffered grievous injuries in the accident. It is also submitted that Illam Singh has spent Rs.60,000/- on his treatment. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of expenditure incurred on treatment, loss of income & pain and suffering etc. It is alleged that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 which was insured with respondent No.3 and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

6. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement and have controverted the contents of the petition. Allegations with regard to rash and negligent driving have been denied. A plea has been taken that accident took place due to mechanical defect in the vehicle.

7. Respondent No.3- Insurance Company has also challenged the petition by alleging that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the canter and as such, he violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The other allegations regarding income and loss of earning etc. have also been denied and dismissal of the claim petitions was sought.

8. Replication was filed and from the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Canter No.HR-12/6340 by respondent No.1?OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, how much and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident as alleged?OPR

4. Relief.”

9. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

10. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver/ respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and n