PB 03 6848 from Sirsa, Haryana to Vaishno Devi on 19.06.1993.
The brief facts that will be required to be numbericed may number be set out Deceased Yogesh 12 years and Parshotam D. Gupta and injured Salochna were travelling in Jeep No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants claimants have filed the present appeal.
Aggrieved, the matter was carried in appeal.
The High Court by its order dated 05.07.2006 held that both the truck as well as the jeep, in which the deceased and the injured were travelling, were responsible for the accident.
As the truck involved in the accident had fled from the spot, the driver owner and insurer of the said truck companyld number be impleaded in any of the claim petitions filed by the claimants.
The injured Salochna also filed a separate claim petition in respect of the injuries sustained by her in the same accident.
695, 407 and 408 of 1995 dated 05.07.2006 by which, though their claim for companypensation has been upheld, the liability to pay the same has been apportioned between the drivers owners of the two vehicles involved in the motor accident.
They are aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. Nos.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for short the Tribunal by its award dated 07.11.1994 held that the truck alone was responsible for the accident and in the absence of the driver owner or the insurer of the said vehicle, numbercompensation can be awarded to any of the claimants.
The jeep which is owned by the respondent No.1 and driven by the respondent No.2 met with an accident with a truck companying from the opposite direction as a result of which Parshotam D. Gupta and Yogesh died on the spot whereas Salochna received serious injuries.
Claim petitions were filed by the parents of Yogesh and the legal heirs of deceased Parshotam Dass including Salochna who is his wife.
The appellants companytend that as they were third parties to the claim, the High Court ought to have made the drivers owners of the vehicles jointly and severally liable to pay companypensation in view of their companyposite negligence instead of apportioning their liability by invoking the principle of companytributory negligence.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. The appellants were the claimants in the proceedings instituted for award of companypensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
