JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. 

1. The aforesaid two appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 03.12.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short “Tribunal”) in petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of the death of Paramjit Singh.

2. FAO-1041-1999 has been instituted by the wife, minor children, and parents of the deceased, Paramjit Singh, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount and challenging the finding of contributory negligence attributed to the deceased.

3. The second appeal bearing FAO-900-1999, has been instituted by the owner and driver of the offending truck namely Abhay Kumar and Sikander Singh, challenging the award and exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the insured.

4. Case of the claimants is that on 19.05.1997, Paramjit Singh, since deceased was driving car No. JKR-3445 of his employer from Malerkotla towards Ludhiana at 9:30 A.M. One Suresh Kumar Jain and Harsh Chaudhary were also travelling in the car along with him. At 10:00 AM, when the car reached near the turn of village Phalewal, the deceased attempted to overtake a tractor-trolley going ahead of his car. While the car was on the correct side of the road, the offending tanker No. PUF-5378 being driven by Sikander Singh (respondent No. 2) in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction without blowing any horn and struck against the car headon. Paramjit Singh sustained multiple injuries in his head and other parts of body and succumbed to same while being shifted to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla. Following the accident, FIR No. 49 dated 19.05.1997 under sections 279/337/338/427 and 304-A was registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh against the respondent-driver. It is further submitted that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2. The claimants were dependent upon the deceased and now they have no source of livelihood and compensation was claimed accordingly.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and stated that the accident in question had taken place on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. The respondent-driver was driving the truck at a very slow speed and the deceased had first hit the tractor-trolley before colliding with the truck and dismissal of the petition has been sought.

6. Respondent No. 3-National Insurance Company Limited, filed a separate written statement and submitted that the respondent-driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the Insurance Company maintained that the accident was a result of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

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

“1. Whether the claimants are legal heirs of Paramjit Singh deceased? OPA.

2. Whether Paramjit Singh died as a result of an accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.PUF-5378 by respondent No. 2, Sikander Singh? OPA.

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? OPA.

3A. Whether Sikander Singh, respondent-driver, was not holding a valid driving licence? If so, its effect? OPR3.

3B. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR3.

4. Relief.”

8. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

9. After hearing the parties and going through the material on file, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,45,400/- as compensation to the claimants on account of the death of Paramjit Singh, after deducting 25% for contributory negligence of the deceased himself, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the institution of claim petition. The Tribunal held respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable and exonerated the Insurance Compa