JUDGMENT : 1. Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu came to entertain a claim petition on file no. 433/Claim filed on 21.09.2002 by the respondents no. 1 and 2 herein seeking grant of compensation under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for loss of their child (son) Master Susheel Kumar in a road traffic accident which occurred on 31.07.2002 at Batera on Akhnoor road when the respondents no. 1 and 2, as being the parents along with their deceased child Master Susheel Kumar aged one and half year were riding Scooter bearing registration no. JK02R-6826, came to be hit from back by the offending vehicle (Tractor) bearing registration no. JK02H-7998 owned by the respondent no. 3-Sain Dass, driven by the respondent no. 4-Romesh Kumar and insured by the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. 2. In this accident, the respondent no. 1-Sunila Sharma was also left grievously injured who, along with her husband-respondent no. 2-Lekh Raj, came to maintain separate claim petition on file no. 83/Claim filed on 14.05.2003 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu. 3. Both the aforesaid claim petitions, being related to the same accident, came to be disposed of by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu with a common judgment dated 29.01.2010 against which the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited came forward with time barred two appeals i.e., CIMA no. 459/2010 and CIMA no. 461/2010 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed on 29.06.2010. Delay in filing the said two appeals came to be condoned in terms of orders dated 22.04.2013 and 24.07.2013 respectively. 4. In terms of the impugned award, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu came to award compensation of an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- for the loss of life of one and half year old son of the respondents no. 1 and 2 whereas with respect to injury related claim of the respondent no. 1-Sunila Sharma, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu came to award an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs in favour of the respondent no. 1-Sunila Sharma. 5. In the aforesaid two appeals, the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd is meaning to find fault with grant of compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- with respect to death of one and half year old son of the respondent no. 1-Sunila Sharma and respondent no. 2-Lekh Raj. 6 lakhs in favour of the respondent no. 1-Sunila Sharma. 5. In the aforesaid two appeals, the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd is meaning to find fault with grant of compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- with respect to death of one and half year old son of the respondent no. 1-Sunila Sharma and respondent no. 2-Lekh Raj. If left to the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited for the loss of life of their one and half years old son, the respondents no. 1 and 2, as being the aggrieved parents, ought not to have been given any compensation except funeral expenses and nothing else as life of one and half year old son was of no other value to the respondents no. 1 and 2. 6. The grievance of the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited in the present two appeals is that it was not afforded proper opportunity to contest the claim petitions inasmuch as the appellant’s effort to summon the respondent no. 3- owner of the offending vehicle, the respondent no. 4-the driver of the offending vehicle and concerned clerk from RTO Bathinda (Punjab) along with record of driving licence was not accommodated by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu by the manner in which the right to lead evidence of the appellant came to be closed given the fact that the diet expenses for summoning the witnesses cited by the appellant had been deposited. 7. The appellant has further agitated the point that to the best possible extent it had placed on record a certificate in original issued by RTO Bathinda (Punjab) to prove the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident but the said document came to be ignored by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu. The appellant is seeking to draw support from the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle despite his appearance in the claim petition defaulted in examining himself which points out the fact that it was an admission of a sort by the driver of the offending vehicle about his non-holding of a valid driving licence. 8. The appellant is also cribbing about the long pendency of the claim petition for a period of more than nine (09) years in which the grant of interest has burdened the appellant qua the compensation awarded. 9. 8. The appellant is also cribbing about the long pendency of the claim petition for a period of more than nine (09) years in which the grant of interest has burdened the appellant qua the compensation awarded. 9. In the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle had come forward to submit their objections in both the claim petitions wherein they denied the involvement of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JK02H-7998 in the accident. The insurance of the said offending vehicle with the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited was admitted. 10. The appellant, in its objections to the claim petition, came to admit the fact of insurance of the offending vehicle (Tractor) vide policy no. 420806/2002/6300516 w.e.f., 01.05.2002 to 30.04.2003 but came to dispute the fact that the insured tractor was not the one which was involved in the accident and therefore, it was not covered under the policy. This plea was put up by reference to the engine number and chasis number of the offending vehicle as against the insured vehicle but not disputing the name of the owner and the insured as being Sain Dass s/o Chajju Ram R/o Village Shama Chak, tehsil Malpur district Jammu. 11. The appellant, in its objections, went to the extent of attributing the accident to the negligence of the respondent no. 2-Lekh Raj driving the scooter no. JK02R-6826. The appellant came to make a passing reference to the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that it was being plied in violation of the policy of insurance. 12. The objections of the appellant were in general in nature using every possible ground of objection without any specific details. 13. The appellant-National Insurance Company Limited came up with an application for amendment of the objections so submitted by it in the case. In its objections to the claim petitions, the appellant had averred that a tractor bearing engine no. 229122, chasis no. 3312620 model 1995 was insured with it vide policy no. 120806/2002/6300516 whereas the offending tractor was having engine no. 229127 and model of 1996. 14. In an application for seeking amendment of its objections, the appellant came forward with the version that the tractor involved vide policy no. 120806/2002/6300596 was with respect to engine no. 229122, chasis no. 3312620 model no. 1995. 120806/2002/6300516 whereas the offending tractor was having engine no. 229127 and model of 1996. 14. In an application for seeking amendment of its objections, the appellant came forward with the version that the tractor involved vide policy no. 120806/2002/6300596 was with respect to engine no. 229122, chasis no. 3312620 model no. 1995. The appellant, however, did not dispute the fact that the name of the insured qua the vehicle was Sain Dass. 15. In its objections, the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited referred to policy no. 420806/2002/6300516 and in its application for amendment, it came to refer policy no. 120806/2002/6300516. 16. The appellant is caught in a contradiction of its own reference. While in its objections to the claim petitions, the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited did not refer to any driving licence of the respondent no. 4-Romesh Kumar-the driver of the offending vehicle but when it came to the matter of seeking summoning of the witnesses by issuance of process of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu, the appellant came to cite concerned clerk of District Transport Authority Bathinda (Punjab) along with record of driving licence no. 132/MDL/9192 with validity from 13.07.2002 to 12.07.2007. From where this driving licence reference came to be fetched by the appellant is not gatherable from anything on the record of the file. 17. In its application for seeking summoning of the witnesses along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, the appellant did not anywhere whisper as to how come it came to co-relate the cited licence number with that of the respondent no. 4-Romesh Kumar being the driver of the offending vehicle. 18. Surely, in its appeal, the appellant has not pressed into service the ground of challenge that the passing of the award should have been subject to pay and recovery principle for any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The only grievance of the appellant is that it has not been afforded due opportunity to contest the claim petition of the aggrieved respondents no. 1 and 2 who had lost their one and half year old son and suffered personal injuries in the accident. 19. The only grievance of the appellant is that it has not been afforded due opportunity to contest the claim petition of the aggrieved respondents no. 1 and 2 who had lost their one and half year old son and suffered personal injuries in the accident. 19. Even if for the sake of assumption, this Court were to hold in the year 2023 that the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited was prejudiced by non-affording of opportunity to present its defence in a proper manner by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu, even then for this Court in August, 2023 to undo the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu for grant of compensation in favour of the respondents no. 1 and 2 for loss of their child and personal injury would be nothing but to revive for the respondents no. 1 and 2 the pain and suffering which must have, in the course of last ten years, been reconciled by them into depth of their memory. 20. In the light of this, this Court does not find that the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu prejudiced the right of the appellant to prove its case and as such the appeals filed by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited against the common judgment dated 29.01.2010 are held to be misconceived being without merit and are, accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications. 21. Any amount, if deposited, with respect to award of compensation in terms of the impugned award before this Court shall be released in favour of the respondent no. 1-Sunila Sharma and respondent no. 2-Lekh Raj in case if the same has not been withdrawn earlier.