JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. The aforesaid three appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 14.06.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short “Tribunal”) in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellants, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by Mr. Brij Mohan Kaushik, death of Mr. Joginder Lal Kashyap and death of Mr. Bachittar Singh

2. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session.

3. Claim petition No.93 of 2001, titled Brij Mohan Kaushik Vs. Sajjan Singh and another was instituted by claimant-Brij Mohan Kaushik, 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- Sajjan Singh, owner-cum-driver, while driving offending truck No.HR-46-A/1070 and insured with respondent No.2.

4. Claim petition No.94 of 2001, titled Arun Kashyap and Others Vs. Sajjan Singh and another was instituted by three sons of deceased- Joginder Lal Kashyap for grant of compensation on account of death of Joginder Lal Kashyap in the same accident.

5. Claim petition No.95 of 2001, titled Surjit Kaur and Others Vs. Sajjan Singh and another was instituted by wife, daughter and son of deceased- Bachittar Singh for grant of compensation on account of death of Bachittar Singh in the same accident.

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- Sajjan Singh, while driving offending truck No.HR-46-A/1070, which was owned by him and insured with respondent No.2. 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. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the accident in question resulting into death of Joginder Lal Kashyap, Bachittar Singh and injuries to Brij Mohan Kaushik and Dharam Singh, was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR 46 A 1077 by its driver-cum-owner Sajjan Singh- respondent No.1? OPR

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the claimants of all the four claim-petitions are entitled to compensation. If so how much and from whom ? OPP

3. Whether the claim petitions are not maintainable in the present from, as alleged ?OPR

4. Whether the claimants have no locus-standi to file and maintain the present claim petitions? OPR

5. Whether this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present claim petitions as alleged ? OPR

6. Whether the claim petitions are bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and causes of action, as alleged ? OPR

7. Whether the truck No. HR 46 A 1077 was being driven by a person not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR

8. Relief.”

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

9. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the claimant- Brij Mohan Kaushik, on account of injuries suffered by him. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to claimants Arun Kashyap etc. on account of death of Joginder Lal Kashyap while a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to claimants Smt. Surjit Kaur etc. on account of death of Bachittar Singh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally.

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

11. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that th