JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The appeal pertains to the year 2013. There is no representation on behalf of the appellants.

Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate, who is present in Court, is appointed as a Legal Aid Counsel, to assist this Court, on behalf of the appellants.

High Court Legal Services Committee to pay fee to learned counsel, as per Rules.

CM-19703-CII-2013.

Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of 146 days’ delay in filing the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons given in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of appellant No.2, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-4657-2013

The instant appeal has been instituted by the claimants against the award dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short `the MACT’), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed. 2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that a claim petition was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’), by the claimants (parents of deceased Mukesh Kumar). It was averred that on the intervening night of 19<sup>th</sup> and 20<sup>th</sup> June, 2003, at about 12:00 (midnight), one Anil and Mukesh Kumar were going to Kharkhara from their Village Latola on a scooter bearing registration No. HR36R/7284. When they reached near Village Kapriwas on National Highway No.8, a Marshal Jeep bearing registration No.HR-35B/4705 (hereinafter referred to as `the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, came from the back side and struck into the scooter. Anil died on the spot, whereas Mukesh Kumar with serious injuries on his person, was taken to the hospital but he too died on 23.06.2003 in the hospital. The matter was reported to the police, whereupon FIR No.140 under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, was registered at Police Station Dharuhera.

It was claimed that deceased Mukesh Kumar was aged 20 years and was working as a Welder (Mistri) in Om Welding Works, Gurugram, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It was further claimed that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. A compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed.

3. Despite notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte.

4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; the claimants having concealed material facts; locus standi; non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties, etc. The factum of involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident was denied. It was further asserted that respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving licence. It was also the case of respondent No.3 that neither respondent No.1 nor his parents had informed respondent No.2 about the accident.

On merits, the factum of the accident, age and income of the deceased was denied. It was further asserted that the FIR was not registered within a reasonable time of the accident. Rest of the averments of the claim petition were denied.

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

“1. Whether Mukesh Kumar and Anil Kumar had died in a vehicular accident that took place due to rash and negligent driving of Marshal Jeep No.HR-35B-4705 by respondent No.1 as alleged in the petition? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners of claim petition No. 145 of 15.06.2010 are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount? OPP

3. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners of claim petition No.146 of 15.06.2010 are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount? OPP

4. Whether respondent No.1 was holding an effective driving licence on the date of accident? If so its effect? OPR

5. Relief.

6. Parties led their respective evidence.

7. Vide impugned