JUDGEMENT

1. This common judgement shall decide the above noted two appeals preferred by the appellant No.

1/respondent No.

3firm/registered owner of the offending vehicle in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Sct, 19881 assailing the impugned common judgement-cum-award dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-02, South District, 1 M.V. Act New Delhi2 in Suit No. 115/2010 and Suit No. 454/2010, whereby the claim petitions of the two claimants were allowed and the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the shoulders of the appellants since the offending vehicle was not insured for third party risks.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of claimants that on 14.01.2007 at about 09.00 PM, the claimants i.e., Sunil and Vijay3, were travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3S-T-2773. Vijay was driving the motorcycle while Sunil and one Prakash were the pillion riders. Upon reaching near the 21st Milestone, Shiv Murti on the National Highway No. 8, the offending vehicle (Mahindra Marshal) bearing registration No. DL-1L-E-7350, driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle, causing the claimants to fall and sustain injuries. The offending vehicle was owned by the appellant No. 1/respondent No. 3, but it was not insured at the time of the accident.

3. The claimants were taken to the Hospital and their MLCs were prepared. The information regarding the accident was given by an eye- witness by calling on No. 100 and an FIR bearing No. 35/2007 was registered at the PS Vasant Kunj.

4. At the time of the accident, Sunil was of 31 years of age and was doing a private job and earning a salary of Rs. 20,000/- p.m., whereas Vijay was 32 years of age and was doing a private service 2 Tribunal 3 Sunil (Claimant) in MAC. APP. 382/2013 with the CHS Company and earning a salary of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Due to the accident, it was pleaded that both the claimants suffered pain and sufferings and various handicaps in life besides not able to work for a period of eight months.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT-CUM-AWARD:

5. The claimants filed their respective claim petition petitions before the learned Tribunal. Sunil filed a claim petition bearing MACP No. 115/2010 titled as “Sh. Sunil v. Bijendra Kumar Giri @ Vijender and Ors.” and Vijay filed claimed petition bearing MACP No. 454/2010 titled as “Sh. Vijay v. Bijendra Kumar Giri @ Vijender and Ors.”. Notice of the petitions were served upon the Appellants herein, wherein the appellants appeared and filed their written statements, denying the averments made in the petition and stating that no accident took place. The appellants stated that the eye-witness named was an interested eye-witness, and that the petitions were filed to harass the appellant.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30.09.2009: - “1.Whether the petitioners Vijay and Sunil received injuries due to an accident on 14.01.2007 at about 9.00 PM at National Highway No. 8, near Shiv Murti Mahipal Pur, New Delhi which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1L E 7350 by R-1, by the vehicle owned by R-2? Opp.

2.The amount of compensation, petitioners are entitled to? 3. Relief.” Vijay (Claimant) in MAC. APP. 383/2013

7. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2010 consolidated both the claim petitions for a joint trial. Learned counsel for appellant no.2 argued that the MLC of injured Sunil Ex. PW1/R1 revealed alcohol consumption, highlighting material difference between the petition/affidavit and investigation findings. It was also put forth that the FIR did not disclose the offending vehicle’s number, and the police failed to seize its bumper and number plate, allegedly fallen post-accident. The appellants submitted that it was a case of contributory negligence, citing three occupants on the motorcycle and Sunil’s intoxicated