NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BALBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of 17 FAOs No. 754, 944, 2051, 2732, 2733, 3285, 3425 to 3431, 3714 of 1999, law and fact arise. Since arguments were addressed in FAO 754 of 1999, the facts are being taken from this case.

(2.) On 14-9-1996 Ajab Singh deceased was driving a scooter No. PB-11G-6304 and Darshan Singh deceased was sitting on the pillion seat. They were going from Devigarh to village Behru at about 9 p.m. when the scooter reached about the one kilometer from Devigarh it was hit by truck No. HR-37-1340 which was being driven by Bhag Singh respondent. As a result of the accident, both Ajab Singh and Darshan Singh received multiple injuries. Darshan Singh died at the spot whereas Ajab Singh was removed to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala where he sucumbed to his injuries. Ajab Singh was about 42 years of age whereas Darshan Singh was 44 years old at the time of the accident. Smt. Balbir Kaur and others being legal heirs of Darshan Singh filed claim petition No. 180 of 1997 and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and others heirs of Ajaib Singh filed claim petition No. 187 of 1997 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ambala claiming compensation on account of the death of Darshan Singh and Ajaib Singh, respectively. Both these petitions were clubbed together and evidence recorded in claim petition No. 180 of 1997. The truck was owned by Ram Niwas son of Bharat Lal and the same stood insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Ram Niwas was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and insurance company as respondent No. 3 in the claim petitions. Bhag Singh driver was or impleaded as respondent No. 1. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal Ram Niwas owner, Bhag Singh driver and the insurance company contested the claim and controverted the allegations made in the claim petitions. Bhag Singh produced his driving licence which is Exhibit R 1 on the record and the Insurance company placed on the record a copy of the insurance policy which is Exhibit R 2. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-

(3.) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Bhag Singh respondent resulting in the death of Ajaib Singh and Darshan Singh. Issue No. 1 was thus decided in favour of the claimants and against the owner, driver and the insurer of the truck. As regards the quantum of compensation, Smt. Balbir Kaur and others were awarded a sum of Rs. 7,04,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Darshan Singh and another sum of Rs. 5,42,000/- was awarded to Smt. Jawinder Kaur and others being heirs of Ajaib Singh deceased. It may be mentioned that at no stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal did the insurance company plead that there was collusion between the claimants and the insured, nor is there any order passed by the Tribunal allowing the insurance company the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the insured. It is against the award that the insurance company has filed the present appeal. Along with the memorandum of appeal the appellants have filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Pro-cedure read with Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (hereinafter called the Act) seeking permission of this Court to prosecute the appeal on merits and in the name of the insured. The prayer made in the application is that the appellant be allowed to challenge the award on merits which pleas were available only to the insured. A reading of the grounds of appeal would show that the insurance company has challenged the award on the ground that the Tribunal erred in law in awarding a sum of Rs. 7,04,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Darshan Singh which amount, according to the appellant, is highly excessive. Similarly, it is alleged that the sum of Rs. 5,42,000/- awarded to the heirs of Ajaib Singh is also excessive. Another ground of appeal taken by the insurance company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent in causing the accident and that the finding of the Tribunal to that effect is erroneous.