JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

FAO-8506-2017 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company for setting aside the award dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby, the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 were awarded a compensation of Rs.10,22,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Rohan Kumar and the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation.

XOBJC-48-2023

2. The present cross-objections have been preferred against the award dated 28.02.2017 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal, for enhancement of compensation, granted to the cross-objectors/claimants to the tune of Rs.10,22,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Rohan Kumar.

3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross- objections filed by the claimants/cross-objectors are arising out of the same award dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), therefore, FAO-8506-2017 and XOBJC-48-2023 are decided vide this common judgment.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.11.2015, respondent No.1 Dharambir Singh took Surender Kumar and Rohan Kumar (since deceased) for the work assigned and they reached the fields of village Babepur. It is alleged that Surender Kumar and Rohan Kumar (since deceased) loaded a trolley attached to the tractor bearing registration No. HR-14L-3613 with bundles of rice straw and thereafter proceeded from the fields. It is further alleged that Rohan Kumar, in the course of discharging his duties, sat on the bundles of rice straw loaded in the trolley, while Surender Kumar sat behind the driver Dharambir Singh on the tractor. During the journey, Surender Kumar repeatedly requested Dharambir Singh (respondent No.1) to drive the tractor at a slow speed; however, he allegedly drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. As a result, Rohan Kumar fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries, leading to his death at the spot.

5. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether the accident, resulting into the death of Rohan Kumar son of Sh.Surender had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration no.HR-14L-3613 by respondent no.1? OPP.

2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the respondent no.1 was not holding valid driving license on the date of alleged accident and whether respondent no.2 has contravened the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, if so its effect? OPR-3.

4. Relief.”

7. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,22,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on account of death of Rohan Kumar and the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No.3 and 4 were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Hence, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends

i) that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in holding that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-14L-3613.

ii) that the said finding is perverse and not borne out from the evidence available on record.

iii) that, as per the First Information Report, the registration number of the offe