FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.05.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going on a scooter bearing registration No.PB-02R-4223 from Kala Amb to Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one truck bearing No.HR-37-7751 came from Naraingarh side and caused the accident with their scooter. As a result, Mohan Lal received multiple simple and grievous injuries besides head injury and died on the spot. Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also received multiple injuries and under semi-conscious condition wrongly disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar to the police. However, later on when, she regained consciousness, she made a statement on 16.05.2002 that her name is Shakuntla Devi and that of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck No. HR-37-7751. Respondents No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. It has been averred that the deceased was 34 years of age and he was working as mason-cum-labour contractor and was earning 40,000/- per annum. It has been averred that the deceased could not marry due to medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, who happened to be son of elder brother of the deceased. It is also submitted that earlier the claimant No.1 had filed a claim petition in the MACT, Ambala City, but due to several errors in the said petition and the fact that the claimant No.2-Gulzar Singh was minor, the said petition was withdrawn.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 29.07.2004.

4. Respondent No.3 has contested the claim petition and has submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable because earlier claim petition filed at Amabla was withdrawn without permission of the court.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident was caused due to involvement of truck registration No.HR 37-7751 being driven by Satpal respondent No.1 causing death of Mohan Lal as alleged?

OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation amount on account of death of deceased Mohan Lal in the accident. If so, how much and from who? OPP

3. Whether the insured has violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so to what effect ?

OPR3

4. Relief.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

7. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the claim petition was solely dismissed on the ground that previous claim petition Exhibit P-4, filed before the MACT, Ambala, was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action.

Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

10. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:

“10. It is worth-noting that Smt. Sardari Devi mother and Gulzar Singh, adopted son of deceased Mohan Lal filed this claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal on 17-3-2003. Unfortunately Smt. Sardari Davi died on 26-3- 2003 itself and therefore, her legal heirs were impleaded. The affidavit of Piare Lal brother of the deceased shows that the deceased was 34 years old and was working as labour contractor and was earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He also alleged that the deceased incapable of producing a child, therefore, he did not marry and he adopted his son Gulzar Singh in Baisakhi 2000 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. The petitioners also produced one school certificate mark C allegedly issued by Head Master, Geeta High School, Gheer in accordance wi