JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals which have been instituted against the Award dated 14.09.2001.

2. The appeal bearing FAO No.1841 of 2001 has been instituted against the Award dated 14.09.2001 passed in MACT case No.41 of 2000 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs.3,09,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident which took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending truck bearing No.HR-01-7509, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and all the respondents have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

3. The appeal bearing FAO No.1842 of 2001, has been instituted against the Award dated 14.09.2001 passed in MACT case No.39 of 2000 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs.37,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident which took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending truck bearing No.HR-01-7509, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and all the respondents have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

4. From the pleadings of all the parties, the following issues were framed and consolidated for both the petitions:

1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Kashmir Singh, Respondent No.1, driver of truck no. HR-01-7509? О.Р.Р.

2. Whether petitioner Bhagwant Singh of M.A.C.T. case No.39 of 2000, suffered injuries in this accident and is entitled to claim compensation on account of the same? If so, to which extent and from whom? O.P.P.

3. Whether motorcycle no. HR-08B-1369 of Bhagwant Singh of M.A.C.T. case No.40 of 2000, suffered damage in this accident and he is entitled to claim compensation on account of the same. If so, to which extent and from whom? O.Ρ.Ρ.

4. Whether M.A.C.T. petitioner Khushwant Singh of case No.41 of 2000, suffered injuries in this accident and is entitled to claim compensation on account of the same. If so, to which extent and from whom? O.P.P.

5. Whether the insured violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so, to what effect? O.P.R.3.

6. Relief.”

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

6. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal held that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Kashmir Singh while driving offending vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-01-7509. Resultantly, Tribunal held that appellant-Bhagwant Singh is entitled to compensation of Rs.37,000/- in MACT Case No.39 of 2000 alongwith interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, whereas, the appellant- Khushwant Singh was awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.3,09,000/- in MACT Case No.41 of 2000, along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

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

8. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals relates to assessment of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by claimants Bhagwant Singh and Khushwant Singh and therefore, the entire facts of the case with regard to the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity as learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion under issue No.1 that accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligen