JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.

1. The record of the present case was destroyed in a fire incident in the High Court Branch. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed on record the copies of the claim petition, written statement filed by respondent No.1, statement of one of the eye-witness, namely, PW4 Roop Chand and copy of the award, which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the record.

2. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 01.03.2002 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.180 of 1997 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs.1,92,000 has been awarded as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Jaswinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident which allegedly took place due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 (owner-cum-driver) while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.MP-09-D-2465 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), which was insured with respondent No.2.

3. Case of the claimants is that on 07.10.1997 Jaswinder Singh (since deceased), while driving Government Jeep bearing No.PB-11-A-5831 was going from Patiala to Samana alongwith Roop Chand (JTO), Harcharan Singh (phone mechanic) and Bal Krishan (R.M.). When the jeep reached near Dhakraba Bridge at about 8:30 PM, truck bearing No.MP-09-D-2465 came from Samana side which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 and he struck the truck against the jeep. The accident in question was witnessed by Harwinder Singh and Gulshan Kumar. Jaswinder Singh, who was driving the jeep died at the spot while other occupants of the jeep namely Harcharan Singh, Bal Krishan and Roop Chand suffered multiple injuries who were taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for treatment where Harcharan Singh died after sometime. It is further submitted that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 (owner-cum-driver) while driving offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.2 and both of them are liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. FIR No.340 dated 08.10.1997, under Section 279, 304-A IPC was also registered at Police Station, Sadar Patiala regarding accident in question.

4. It is further submitted that deceased was 29 years of age and was employed as a driver and was temporarily working as a driver with Telecom Department. He used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month as driver and additionally, Rs.7,500/- per month from the Maruti Van owned by him. A sum of Rs.8,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation.

5. Respondent No.1 in his written statement has opposed the petition on the grounds of maintainability and that claimants are not the legal representatives of the deceased. The material contents of the claim petition regarding rash and negligent driving on his part, age and income of the de- ceased have also been refuted. It is further submitted that on the ill-fated day at about 9/9:30 PM, respondent No.1 while driving the said truck loaded with raw bananas was going from Samana to Patiala side at a normal speed and on the left side of the road. The jeep in question came from the opposite side which was being driven by the deceased in a zig-zag manner, rashly and neg- ligently and it came towards the wrong side of the road. Respondent No.1 had blown the horn and took his truck towards katcha portion of the road on the left side and stopped the same but jeep got out of control and hit the standing truck. The driver and other occupants were consuming alcohol and some bottles of liquor were also found lying in the jeep. One scooterist also came at the spot who told his name as Dr. Satnam Singh and after some time one police constable