JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. The matter is being taken up post lunch session.

2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 25.04.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon in MACT Petition No. 43 of 13.03.1993 titled Ramesh Devi and others Vs. Randhir Singh and another filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased- Vinod Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 17.02.1999 on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending tractor bearing No.HR-26-F-2868 owned by respondent No.2.

3. Case of the claimants is that on 17.02.1999, Vinod Kumar (since deceased) along with his brother Rajbir was going from their house to their workshop on a scooter. At about 04:30/05:00 PM, they reached Tauru Road near Government High School, Bilaspur Khurb. The scooter was being driven on the left side of the road and in the meanwhile offending tractor bearing No.HR-26-F- 2868 being driven by respondent No.1 at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit the scooter after coming to the wrong side of the road. As a result of the accident, Vinod Kumar suffered multiple injuries and he was taken to Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon where he died on 01.03.1993 during the treatment. FIR bearing No.30 dated 18.02.1999 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Bilaspur. It is further submitted that deceased was 29 years of age and was working as a furniture Carpenter and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants are the wife, son, daughter and parents of the deceased who were dependant upon him and a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was claimed as compensation.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement refuted the contents of the petition and denied the factum of accident. It is further submitted that deceased was not holding a driving licence and had dashed the scooter in some unknown vehicle which fled away from the spot. Respondents No.1 and 2 denied their liability to pay any compensation.

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

“1. Whether death of Vinod Kumar was caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle Ramesh Devi etc. Vs. Ravinder etc. No.HR-26-F/2868 drive by Randhir Singh, driver, respondents no.1 as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue no.1 is proved to what amount petitioners are entitled to receive compensation and from which of the respondents? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of accident? OPP

4. Relief.”

6. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material on file, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,83,612/- as compensation alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

9. Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises. The pleadings of the parties and evidence on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. Learned counsel contended that the scooterist himself was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and had contributed to the accident and he was not even wearing a helmet at the time of accident. He also did not possess a valid driving licence authorising him to drive a scooter and had he taken all the precautionary measures