HASEM MOHAMAD JEVA Vs. SHANTABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of one appeal and 17 writ petitions arose out of common judgement and also common accident against common opponents. Therefore, upon joint request they are being disposed of by this common judgement. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The theme of this group of 18 matters is as to whether exclusion of respondent No. 5 original opponent No. 3 Insurance Company by the Tribunal from making loss good to the insured under the impugned judgement and awards in favour of the original claimants and against the driver and the owner of the motor truck involved in the accident.

(2.) With a view to appreciate the sole issue let us have a skeleton projection of material facts giving rise to this group of matters. A motor truck No. GQC 6137 owned by the appellant in appeal and petitioner in other Special Civil Applications original opponent No. 2 driven by one Dherubhai Mansinh Vasava, original opponent No. 1 in all 18 claim petitions was proceedings from village Mokhadi and at about 8.30 p.m. on the date of the accident on 7.6.1988 the driver of the truck lost control of the vehicle and as a result the truck went off the road resulting into serious injuries to one Parvin Jairambhai Vasava who later on succumbed to the same and injuries to various other persons travelling in the truck.

(3.) 18 Claim petitions came to be filed, out of which one by heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Parvin Jairambhai Vasava and rest by the injured claimants, in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bharuch, on the premises that the deceased and the insured persons were travelling in the offending truck at the relevant time as employees - labourers of the appellant original opponent No. 2, owner of the truck and in course of employment the accident occurred and therefore the claimants claimed compensation for the tortious act committed by the driver of the truck from the driver, owner and the insurer. Original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 driver and the insured raised common defence by filing written statement at Exh. 98 whereby they contended that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver and he was not responsible for the accident. However, even if he is held to be responsible for the accident, in view of the insurance policy Exh. 99, the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the insurer as the claimants and the deceased were travelling at the relevant time in the offending truck as labourers of the owner of the truck and at the time of accident, they were in course of the employment. In general, a joint defence, in substance, raised by the driver and the owner of the vehicle was that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the amount of compensation that may be determined against the driver and the owner of the vehicle.