Judgment :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 06.09.2000 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.31 of 1999 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs.1,30,000 has been awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Jagjit Singh in a motor vehicular accident which allegedly took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.PBA-4545 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), which was insured with respondent No.3. It was further ordered that in case the respondents failed to make the payment within a period of two months, the claimants shall be held entitled to interest @12% per annum from the date of award till the date of realisation.

2. Case of the claimants is that on 08.04.1999 at about 08:30 AM, Jagjit Singh (since deceased), while driving Moped bearing registration No.PB-03C/9076, was going on the side of canal in the area of Village Poohli. His brother Malkiat Singh was following him on his scooter. In the meanwhile, Ambassador Car bearing No.PBA-4545 being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and struck against the Moped of Jagjit Singh. Jagjit Singh, who was driving the Moped fell on the ground and sustained multiple injuries. Malkiat Singh took Jagjit Singh to Civil Hospital, Bathinda in a Jeep, but the doctors declared him dead. It is further submitted that accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle owned by respondents No.2 and 2-A which was insured with respondent No.3 and they are liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. FIR bearing No.28 dated 8.4.1999 under Sections 279and 427 IPC was registered at Police Station Nathana. It is further submitted that deceased was 45 years of age and was working as a Sewadar with Municipal Council, Bathinda and used to earn Rs.5,100/- per month and besides this, he used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month by sale of milk and Rs.1,000/- per month on account of supervision of the land. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased who were dependant upon him and a sum of Rs.13,22,400/- was claimed as compensation.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2-A in their joint written statement refuted the contents of the petition and denied the factum of accident. It is further submitted that deceased was himself responsible for the alleged accident.

4. Respondent No.2 in his reply pleaded that no cause of action has arisen against him. The claim petition is bad due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. He had sold the car in question much before the accident i.e. on 30.12.1998 to Janak Rani respondent No.2-A. He denied all other allegations and sought dismissal of the petition.

5. Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company also contested the claim petition on the ground that neither the deceased nor respondent No.1 was holding a driving licence and had received injuries in some other accident. Respondent No.3 denied its liability to pay any compensation.

6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

i) Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Jagjit Singh? If so, its effect? OPP

ii) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Car No.PBA-4545, driven by Bawarjeet Singh respondent No.1, as a result of which Jagjit Singh died? OPP

iii) If issue No.1 and 2 are proved, to what amount to compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP

iv) Whether the respondent No.1 Bawarjeet Singh was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident? If so its effect? OPR

v) Whether the respondent No.1, 2 and 2-A were not holding valid registration, route permit and fitnes