The instant civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation and liability to pay compensation to be imposed upon all the non- claimant/respondents jointly and severally, against the judgment dated 01/03/2011 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Court (Communal Riots)/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as to “the Tribunal”) in MAC No. 579/2008 (448/1997), whereby the claim petition was partly accepted and award of Rs.14,89,060/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum was passed instead of Rs.20,60,000/- as claimed in the claim petition.

After filing of the instant appeal, non-claimant/respondent No. 2 Narendra Kumar Bhansali submitted cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC against the impugned judgment and award dated 01/03/2011 with prayer to quash and set aside the finding of the impugned award passed against him. In alternative it is also prayed that he may be allowed to defend the case on merits which has been decided ex parte against him and for this purpose the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal.

Material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant/appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal against the non-claimant/respondents for claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him stating therein that on intervening night of 04/03/1997 and 05/03/1997, the claimant was going on a motorcycle bearing No. RJ 14 M 2359 from Railway Station to Malviya Nagar, Jaipur which was driven by Mukesh Kumar. When they reached near Imliwala Phatak, a Fiat Car bearing registration No. RNV – 6918 came from opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of the appellant. The car was driven by Suresh Yadav rashly and negligently. It is also pleaded that Mukesh Kumar also turned the motorcycle towards Imliwala Phatak rashly and negligently. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of car and motorcycle. It is also pleaded that the claimant sustained serious injuries and became permanently disabled to the extent of 50.89%. At the time of accident, the claimant was 32 years old and he was working with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and prayed to award Rs.20,60,000/- as compensation jointly and severally against non-claimant/respondents.

In the said claim petition, notices were ordered to be issued to the non-claimants. Vakalatanamas were filed for non- claimant/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by Shri Jitendra Shrimali, for non- claimant/respondent Nos. 4 & 5 by Shri Som Dutt and for respondent No. 6 by Ram Avatar on 10/09/1997. Non-claimant Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 did not file their reply to the claim petition. On 27/10/1997 none appeared for the non-claimant Nos. 1 & 2, thus ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. On 08/12/1999 right of non-claimant Nos. 4 & 5 to file reply was closed.

Non-claimant No. 6 in it’s reply admitted that the Motorcycle No. RJ 14 M 2359 was insured with her and denied all the material averments of the claim petition and pleaded that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by non-claimant No. 1, therefore, liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on driver of the vehicle insured with the answering non- claimant/respondent. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident the insured vehicle was driven by non- claimant/respondent No. 4, who was not having valid and effective driving licence which was in the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against her.

From pleadings of the parties learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. Claimant appeared in the witness box as AW- 1 and exhibited 18 documents. The witness was cross-examined by the insurance company alone. Non-claimant insurance company did not produce any evidence. Thereafter, argumen