BIMLA DEVI ALIAS NIRMALA Vs. PARYAS ALIAS SONU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of FAO-6214-2011 titled 'Bimla Devi alias Nirmala Vs. Paryas alias Sonu and others' and FAO-6215- 2011 titled 'Bimla Devi alias Nirmala Vs. Paryas alias Sonu and others' both filed by Bimla Devi alias Nirmala, mother of deceasedKrishan and Binder for enhancement of compensation awarded vide common award dtd. 18/3/2010 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACT case No.34 of 2009 titled 'Bimla Devi alias Nirmala and another Vs. Paryas alias Sonu and others' and MACT case No.35 of 2009 titled 'Bimla Devi alias Nirmala and another Vs. Paryas alias Sonu and others' on account of death of Krishan and Binder due to injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident which took place on 14/4/2009.

(2.) The claimants filed abovesaid claim petitions under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act') on the common facts that on 14/4/2009 deceased-Krishan and Binder were going on their bi-cycle from Panipat towards village Garhi Sikanderpur. When they reached near village Garhi Sikanderpur truck bearing registration No.HR67A-2220, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, came from the opposite side driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and struck against their bi-cycle due to which Krishan and Binder suffered injuries resulting in their death. FIR No.134 dtd. 14/4/2009 was registered under Ss. 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Police Station Model Town, Panipat regarding the accident. Krishan was aged about 9 years and Binder was aged about 14 years and both of them were students of 3rd and 6 th class respectively. While claiming themselves to be legal representatives of the deceased, the claimants-parents prayed for award of compensation of Rs.6,000,00.00 each in both the petitions with costs and interest against respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

(3.) On notice, the petitions were contested by respondents. In their written statements in both the petitions respondents No.1 and 2 denied accident and their liability while pleading that the truck was insured with respondent No.3. In its written statements in both the petitions respondent No.3 took objections as to respondent No.1 not having valid and effective driving licence and breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy and controverted the material averments made in the petitions and denied its liability.