JUDGMENT : 

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. 

1. As requested, the matter has been taken up after lunch break.

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

3. These appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 24.11.2001 passed by MACT, Sangrur (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Cases No.18, 19 and 20 dated 27.5.1997 in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1 lakh, Rs.13,000/- and Rs.80,000/- have been awarded as compensation to Prem Latta, Gagan Jindal and Lalit Kumar -claimants/appellants respectively along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle/truck No.PNT-4119 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), which was insured with respondent No.3.

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

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, to what extent and from whom?OPP

2. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 as alleged in the petition?OPP

3. Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation amount on the ground mentioned in the written statement?OPR-3

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, a sum of Rs.1 lakh, Rs.13,000/- and Rs.80,000/- have been awarded as compensation to Prem Latta, Gagan Jindal and Lalit Kumar -claimant/appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, firstly payable by respondent No.3 and Insurance Company was given a right to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2 as respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred by claimant. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.2 that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, who was driver of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents No.1 and 2, challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.2 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

9. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeals and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the present appeals have to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law and the compensation awarded vide impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

12. Compensation in FAO No.2695 of 2002 “Prem Latta Vs. Mohammad Sadique and others”:-

Case of claimant- Prem Latta is that she had suffered multiple injuries including grievou