NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SUDESH CHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, it is proposed to decide a batch of ten appeals arising out of the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 20th January, 2006. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its orders dated 18.05.2001 and 15.03.2003 had clubbed the ten petitions out of which the present appeals arise and Petition bearing No. 1238/1998 (New No. 648/2003), titled as "Smt. Sudesh Chabra & Ors. v. Mani Ram & Ors.", was taken as the lead case. Since all the ten petitions arise out of the same motor vehicular accident, it is proposed to delineate the facts in the lead case, that is,MAC. APP. No.337-38/2006 titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudesh Chabra and Ors.".

(2.) CONCISELY , the facts are that on 29.03.1998 at about 2.00 a.m., a private bus bearing No. DL 1P 0798, carrying passengers travelling from Chhatarpur to Jahangir Puri, collided with a stationary TMB trailor bearing registration No. HNC 422 near Golf Ground, R.R. Centre on the Ring Road. The said trailor, which was allegedly parked on the wrong side of the road, was carrying angle iron protruding outside the body of the trailor. As a result of the accident, some of the passengers received injuries and some others died. The injured victims as well as the legal representatives of the deceased persons filed claim petitions claiming compensation, alleging that the accident had been caused on account of the carelessness, rashness and negligence of the driver and owner of the TMB trailor, the respondents No. 4 and 5. In some of the petitions, Ajay Yadav (the respondent No.5) had been impleaded as the owner, while in others Lata Yadav was also impleaded as respondent, being the joint owner of the offending trailor along with the said Ajay Yadav.

(3.) THE appellant, M/s National Insurance Company Limited, which was impleaded as respondent No.3 in all the petitions, being the insurer of the TMB trailor, in the separate written statement filed by it, pleaded that it had no notice of the accident and that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the conditions of the policy of the insurance.