KUDIYAM MANGALI Vs. VIRENDRA UPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue projected in both the appeals are closely interlinked and are arising out of the same accident. MAC No. 87 of 2015 has been preferred by the Claimants seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal whereas MAC No. 234 of 2015 has been filed by the Insurance Company to the extent, they are aggrieved with the award.

(2.) We heard Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, the learned counsel appearing for the Claimants, Shri A.L.Singroul, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Driver and Owner, and Shri Raj Awasthi, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

(3.) The sequence of events reveals that on the ill fated day, the deceased was riding a bi-cycle. While so, he was knocked down to death by the offending Jeep bearing registration No. C.G.-18/T-0126 driven by 1st respondent, owned by 2nd respondent and insured by 3rd respondent. This was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition by the widow and the children. The claim was resisted mainly on quantum and negligence. The Insurance Company also put up a claim to the effect that the offending vehicle was being driven by 1st respondent without having a valid driving licence insofar as driver was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle.