NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RASHID AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned cross appeals, one bearing FAO No. 1125 of 2011 having been brought by The New India Assurance Company Limited and the other bearing FAO No. 3155 of 2011 having been brought by the claimants, are directed against the common award dated 6.9.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which, the claim petition brought by the claimants under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") has been allowed and a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants. The facts necessary for disposal of these two appeals are as under :

(2.) On 9.3.2009, Hashim Ali (deceased) was going from Fire Brigade Rakkar Colony, Una (Himachal Pradesh) towards Mahtpur on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-37SA-4132. At about 5.30 p.m., a truck bearing registration No. HP-24B-4572 driven by Nasir Mohammad, respondent No. 1, came from the side of Mahtpur in a rash and negligent manner and the side of the truck had hit the motorcycle. On account of the accident, Hashim Ali fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries to which he succumbed at the spot. The accident was reported to Police Station, Sadar, Una where FIR No. 92 was registered on 9.3.2009. Hashim Ali was aged 21 years and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by working as a tractor driver. A sum of Rs. 8.00 lakhs is claimed as compensation on his death by the claimants.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2, the driver and owner respectively of the truck in question, have brought a common written statement and have claimed that no accident occurred with the truck in question while it was driven by respondent No. 1. The case registered with the police is said to be false, having been got registered with ulterior motive of getting compensation. It is further averred that respondent No. 1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence and the truck was insured with respondent No. 3 and if the Tribunal finds any amount to be payable to the claimants as compensation, then respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the same.