JUDMGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J. 

IOIN-1-FAO-1687-2005 & IOIN-1-FAO-5452-2004

Respondents No.1 and 2 could not be served. However, the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants jointly and severally with respondents No.1 and 2. No liability has been fastened upon respondents No.4 and 5 and there is thus no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 as the only issue required for determination is enhancement of compensation, if any.

IOIN stands disposed of.

FAO-1687-2005, FAO-5451-2004 and FAO-5452-2004

1. The aforesaid three appeals have been instituted against the award dated 20.10.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, arising out of the same accident, which was registered vide FIR No.102 dated 18.09.1999 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC at Police Station Kolayat, Bikaner.

2. Claim petition No.342-MACT-2000 was instituted by Bimla Devi and others against Satya Parkash and others for grant of compensation on account of death of Mahender Singh, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of offending bus No.RRF-579 as well as jeep No.HR-39-5300. Offending bus No.RRF-579 is owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., while jeep No.HR-39-5300 is owned by respondent No.5 and insured with respondent No.6-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. As per their version, the accident in question resulting in death of Mahender Singh took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of drivers of both the vehicles i.e. respondents No.1 and 4.

3. Claim petition No.344-MACT-2000 was instituted by claimant- Rohtash against Satya Parkash and others for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1- Satya Parkash, while driving offending bus No.RRF-579, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

4. Claim petition No.345-MACT-2000 was instituted by Subhash, owner of jeep No.HR-39-5300, seeking compensation on account of damage suffered by his vehicle due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending bus No.RRF-579, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident in question resulting in death of Mahender and injuries to Subhash, Bhagat Ram, Ram Partap, Moman and Rohtash took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No.RRF-579 and jeep No.HR-39/5300 driven by respondent No.1 and 4 as alleged? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioners are entitled to recover?OPP

3. Relief.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals 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.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending bus No. RRF-579, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

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

8. Compensation in FAO-1687-2005, Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Satya Parkash and Others, arising out of MACT No.342-MACT of 2000:-

9. As per version of the petitioners, deceased-Mahender Singh was 35 years of age, who was an agriculturist and was running a milk dairy also and he used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month. As per their version, deceased also owned 12 acres of land.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has today placed on file the statements of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 and statement of the counsel f