JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J .

1. Both the appeals, as noticed above, are being disposed of by this common judgment, having arisen out of the impugned award dated 20.09.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal’), whereby the claimants were awarded compensation to tune of Rs.7,28,560/- along with interest @7.5% per annum and the Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

2. The appeal, i.e. FAO-6721-2011, has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award dated 20.09.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1 to 6/claimants was allowed and the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to respondent No.1 to 6/claimants to the tune of Rs.7,28,560/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

3. The appeal, i.e. FAO-1124-2013, has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the Award dated 20.09.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to them to the tune of Rs.7,28,560/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Babli Chauhan, occurred on 25.01.2008.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

4. Brief facts of the case as per claim petition are that on 25.1.2008 deceased Babli Chauhan after observing road clear from traffic, crossed 35 ft wide two lanes of GT road meant for going vehicles from Delhi towards Amritsar. When he was at a distance of one feet from the divider, in the mean-time, a Logan car bearing registration No.PB-02AQ-0308 came from Delhi side which was being driven by Dilbagh Singh on the correct left hand side of the road. But a goods vehicle Tata 207 bearing registration No.HR-37-B-1120 came from Delhi side and the said Tata 207 was behind the car. Gurmail Singh was driving the said Tata 207 in a rash, negligent, carelessly and in a zig zag manner. He without caring less distance in between car and Babli Chauhan tried to over take the Logan car. In this process and in a negligent manner, respondent No.1 went on the extreme wrong side of its lane near the divider and hit against Babli Chauhan with such a force that he was thrown on the divider constructed in between four lanes of GT road i.e. two lanes for going vehicles from Delhi side and due to the injuries suffered by Babli Chauhan, he died at the spot. Gurmail Singh did not stop his vehicle and he fled away after causing the accident. FIR No. 21 dated 25.01.2008 under Sections 279/304-A of IPC was registered in the said police station against Gurmail Singh.

5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted the factum of compensation.

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

“1) Whether deceased Babli Chauhan had died in an accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving Tata 207 No. HR-37-B-1120 rashly and negligently on 25.1.2008 as alleged ?OPP

2 Whether respondent no. I was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident, if so its effect?OPR

(3) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP 

(3A) Whether the Tata 207 No.HR-37-B-1120 was not holding valid route permit, registration certificate and fitness certificate at the time of alleged accident.? OPR-3

(4) Relief.”

7. 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 Insurance Company preferred appeal bearing FAO No. 6721-2011 challenging the award as well as quantum of compensation being on higher side. The claimants have also preferred FAO No. 1124-2013 seeking enhancement of the compensation