B SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. KHATUMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is from a judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), awarding compensation for the death of a person in an automobile accident. Appellants 1 and 2 are the owner and the driver respectively of the motor bus involved in the accident, Respts. 1 to '6 herein (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) are the wife and children of Kaza Hussa in the victim of the fatal accident. Respt.7 herein is the Insurance Co. with which the motor bus had been insured against third party risk.

(2.) The claimants presented an application under S.110A of the Act before the Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs.25,000 for the death of Kaza Hussain. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellants and the Insurance, Co., were Reespts.1 to 3, respectively. To that application the appellants filed one set of objections and the Insurance Co. filed an independent statement of ejections in which it pleaded, inter alia, that the bus driven by a person who did not possess a valid driving licence and that the bus did not also have a valid permit.

(3.) The Tribunal framed issues and proceeded to try the case. On 3-8-1972 the claimants filed a memo stating that they did not intend to press their claim against the Insurance Co. and thai their claim against it (the Insurance Company) might be dismissed as not pressed. On the basis of that memo the Tribunal made an order on that day itself dismissing the application as against the Insurance Co. Subsequently, the Tribunal recorded the evidence of witnesses examined by the claimants. On 27-10-1972, the Tribunal adjourned the case to 3-11-1972 slating that both sides should close the evidence on 3-11-1972. On 3-11-1972 the Tribunal recorded the evidence of the claimants witnesses. The claimants closed their evidence. The appellants were not ready with their witnesses on that day. They prayed for an adjournment to enable them to produce their witnesses. The Tribunal declined to grant an adjournment, heard arguments on that day itself and pronounced judgment on 7-11-1972 awarding a compensation of Rs.5,000 against the appellants only.