BASAPPA SANGAPPA KORI Vs. NENAMALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these five appeals arise out of the common judgment and award passed on 3-1-1985 by the motor accidents claims tribunal ii, bijapur, in m.v.c. nos. 1, 13, 14, 2 and 15 of 1984 respectively, fixing the liability of making good the compensation awarded to the claimants on the appellant herein and one ahammad, owner and the driver of the tempo bearing registration No. Mxi 569 respectively, involved in the accident that took place on 11-11-1983 at about 6-45 am. On bijapur-sholapur road near badrekar police quarters, first gate, bijapur, resulting in the death of sumitrabai wife of claimant 1 in m.v.c. No. 1 of 1984 (m.f.a No. 660 of 1985) and injuries to the claimants in the other cases.

(2.) there were five claim petitioners before the tribunal for compensation for the death and injuries suffered in the accident. The claims were opposed by the appellant-insured, the insurer and the driver of the vehicle in question. On the completion of the pleadings, the learned member of the tribunal raised common issues and additional issues. The common issues are: (1) whether the petitioner proves that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver? (2) whether the petitioner proves that respondent 1 was the driver and respondent 2 was the owner of the vehicle in question? The common additional issues were: (1) whether the accident was due to the sudden bursting of the tyre as contended by the respondents? (2) whether the deceased and the injured were the passengers having paid the hire charges? While answering additional issue 1 in the negative, the learned member of the tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and that respondent 2, appellant herein, was the owner thereof. On the basis of these findings, he awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, 5,000/-, 8,000/-, 5,000/- and 8,000/- respectively in favour of the claimants. On the question as to who has to pay these amounts, the learned member of the tribunal answering additional issue 2 in the affirmative, held that the appellant, owner of the vehicle, and its driver have to pay jointly and severally the said amounts. Consequently, he dismissed the petitions as against the insurer. Aggrieved by this finding making the insured liable for compensation, the appellant has preferred these appeals.

(3.) we have heard the learned counsel on both sides.