JOGINDER SINGH Vs. KULDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of FAO No.1317 of 2001 and Cross Objections No.55 -CII of 2004 as both of these cases have arisen out of the same Award.

(2.) THE appellants, owners of Truck No.PBU -171 have filed this appeal challenging the Award dated 5.9.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby, issue No.3, namely, "Whether the respondent/ driver was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident - was decided against the appellants and consequently, respondent No.7 Insurance Company was absolved of the liability to pay the compensation. The Cross -objections have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) THE factual matrix of the case is that on 21.7.1995 Balbir Singh, Roda Singh and Dharampal, who were labourers on the brick -kiln of appellants were travelling on the offending truck from Sugar -mill, Khanna to Jalandhar. When they reached near the school building of village Kahanpur, the truck turned turtle due to its rash and negligent driving by Harpal Singh. Roda Singh and Balbir Singh suffered multiple injuries. Roda Singh succumbed to the injuries on the spot, while Balbir Singh was admitted in the Hospital. An FIR in this regard was lodged against Harpal Singh. Two claim petitions; one by the legal representatives of Roda Singh deceased and another by Balbir Singh injured were filed, which were consolidated. The claim petition filed by Balbir Singh was dismissed, while in the case of death of Roda Singh, the Tribunal after going through the evidence led before it, returned a finding that he had died due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Harpal Singh. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/ - along with interest to the claimants. However, on the issue of validity of the driving license of Harpal Singh, the Tribunal held that he was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident, therefore, the appellants were held liable to pay the compensation. The said finding has been assailed by the appellants, whereas, enhancement in compensation is sought by the cross -objectors/ claimants.