NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 219 of 1991 and 391 of 1991 as the common question of law and facts is involved therein.

(2.) F .A.O. No. 219 of 1991 has been preferred by the National Insurance Company, Ludhiana, being aggrieved by award dated 30.11.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/- in favour of the claimants, claiming that their liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On the other hand, F.A.O. No. 391 of 1991 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of aforestated compensation.

(3.) UPON notice of the claim petition, separate written statements were filed by the respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending truck) in their joint written statement denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Pritpal Singh. It was pleaded that when respondent No. 1 was going from Mullanpur to his village on his truck and had reached near the petrol pump, another truck came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and struck against the front right side of his truck as a result of which the 'U' bolts and the tie-rod of his truck got broken due to which he lost control over the truck and the same went towards right side of the road. It was pleaded that deceased Baldev Singh was driving his scooter rashly and negligently and it was he who hit his scooter against the truck driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3, namely, the National Insurance Company, in its written statement took up the plea that the driver of the offending truck was not having a valid driving licence. It further pleaded that though the truck was insured with it yet its liability was limited. Respondent No. 4, Gurdial Singh, in his written statement while admitting the claim petition, pleaded that deceased Baldev Singh was adopted by Babu Singh and Gurnam Kaur (claimant No. 5 and 6 in the claim petition) and was brought up and educated by them. He further pleaded that he has no objection if the compensation claimed was given to the claimants.