ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. VIPANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are an outcome of a common award dtd. 23/9/2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') and thus, on account of same very legal and factual intricacies, are being taken up together for disposal by way of this common judgment.

(2.) Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2; Mr.Hardeep Singh, Advocate representing respondent No.3 and perused the records of the case.

(3.) The facts in brief which are necessitated and are well evident from the records, are that one Gurdev Singh along with his wife Surinder Kaur (since both deceased) who happen to be the parents of unfortunate claimants Vipanjit Kaur and Sarabjit Singh (wrongly denoted as Sarabjit Kaur) being daughter and son respectively, were going on 25/2/2011 on their scooter bearing registration No.PB-27-A-1054 (in short, 'the ill- fated scooter') from the side of village Todar Majra towards village Sampla and which was being driven by deceased Gurdev Singh. It was in the area of village Behla Khanpur around 8:15 a.m. a car make Indica bearing registration No.PB-23-F-8185 (in short, 'the offending car') came from the side of Fatehgarh Sahib being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed by Narinder Singh respondent No.3 and hit against the ill-fated scooter and dragged them for some distance, as a consequence of which the couple died instantaneously, regarding which FIR No.26 dtd. 25/2/2011 was registered under Ss. 279 and 304- A IPC at Police Station Bassi Pathana. Admittedly Gurdev Singh deceased was aged around 75 years and had retired from Punjab School Education Board. The claimants claim that he was running a dairy-farm besides owning 4 acres of land and thus, was earning Rs.60,000.00 per month on which the claimants were dependent and thus sought compensation from the driver and owner of the offending car as well as the insurer. In the stand of respondent No.3, owner and driver of the offending car, he denied the accident and thus his fault as claimed by the claimants. The insurer in their reply besides taking usual preliminary objections of the driver not holding a legal, valid and effective driving license, took the plea that the owner of the ill-fated scooter and its insurer were not made party, though accepted the fact that the offending car was under insurance cover at the time of accident.