RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of FAO-5628-2011 titled Ravinder Kumar and others Vs. Ved Parkash and another and FAO-6118-2011 titled Ravinder Kumar and others Vs. Ved Parkash and another filed by claimants-Ravinder Kumar and Sunil Kumar sons and Sapna Rani daughter of deceased-Roshan Lal and Smt. Jogindro Devi for enhancement of compensation awarded vide common award dated 11. 05.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACT Case No.138 of 2010 titled Ravinder Kumar and others Vs. Ved Parkash and another and MACT Case No.139 of 2010 titled Ravinder Kumar and others Vs. Ved Parkash and another, on account of death of Roshan Lal and Jogindro Devi due to injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident which took place on 20.08.2008.

(2.) The claimants filed the above said claim petitions under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act') on the common facts that on 20.08.2008 both the deceased Roshan Lal and his wife Jogindro Devi were going to their village Ratangarh from Shahabad on a bicycle peddled by Roshan Lal with his wife Jogindro Devi sitting on the carrier thereof. When they reached near Village Ratangarh, Ford Fiesta Car bearing registration No.HR-10-G-0050 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit their bicycle as a result of which both of them fell down, suffered multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to their injuries. After the accident, respondent No.1 also lost control of the car which fell into the ditches. In this regard FIR No.305 dated 20.08.2008 was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra against respondent No.1.

(3.) In MACT Case No.138 of 2010 titled Ravinder Kumar and others Vs. Ved Parkash and another the claimants averred that Roshan Lal was aged about 45 years and earning Rs. 20,000/- by working as wholesaler of fruits and vegetables. While claiming themselves to be his dependents/legal representatives the claimants sought award of compensation of Rs. 25 lacs against respondents No.1 and 2 with costs and interest.