RAMNATH Vs. PRASANNA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of ten cases (M. A. No. 923 of 1998-Ramnath v. Prasanna Kumar Jain M. A. No. 924 of 1998-Parvati Bai v. Prasanna Kumar Jain M. A. No. 832 of 1998- Harishankar v. Prasanna Kumar Jain M. A. No. 833 of 1998-Sumitra Bai v. Prasanna Kumar Jain M. A. No. 834 of 1998-Har Prasad v. Prasanna Kumar Jain M. A. No. 886 of 1998-Laxman v. Prasanna Kumar Jain M. A. No. 887 of 1998-Praveen Kumar v. Prasanna Kumar Jain M. A. No. 889 of 1998-Geeta Bai v. Prasanna Kumar Jain M. A. No. 890 of 1998-Kali Bai v. Prasanna Kumar Jain and M. A. No. 891 of 1998-Laxman v. Prasanna Kumar Jain) are proposed to be decided by this judgment since they arise out of the same accident and common award dated 19. 3. 98 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar. Before dealing with the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties, brief narration about the accident taken from Parvati Bai v. Prasanna Kumar Jain (M. A. No. 924 of 1998) may be given.

(2.) ON 7. 5. 1995, the minor Neelu (deceased), Rajendra (deceased) and injured Praveen Kumar, Bharat Kumar, Parvati Bai, Ramnath, Sumitra Bai, Pappu alias Har Narayan, Kali Bai, Jittu alias Jitendra, Har Prasad, Rani, Nikhil, Renu and Geeta Bai were going from Bhopal to Sagar through Tempo-Trax jeep No. MP 15-D 1679. Allegation is that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently as a result of which it hit babool tree near police station, Rahatgarh resulting in serious injuries to the passengers out of whom, Rajendra and Neelu died. Accordingly, claim petitions were filed claiming compensation for the personal injuries and death of two occupants of the vehicle. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed joint written statement. They have admitted that the respondent No. 1 was the driver and respondent No. 2 the owner of the vehicle. They have denied that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently resulting in the accident. They have stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. The injured and other persons were known to them, therefore, they were being carried without payment of fare. Therefore, they were not liable to pay the compensation and since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, the liability was of the insurance company. The insurance company has not admitted the claim. It is stated that the vehicle was to be used for private purpose but it was being used for carrying passengers against payment of fare. Besides, it was carrying excess passengers. The driver did not possess valid driving licence, therefore, he committed breach of policy conditions. Hence, it was not liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) ON pleadings of parties, the Claims Tribunal framed as many as eight issues. It came to the conclusion that the accident took place on 7. 5. 1995 when vehicle MP 15-D 1679 driven rashly by driver Prasanna Kumar Jain dashed against babool tree. As a result of this accident, Rajendra and Neelu died while Praveen Kumar, Bha-rat Kumar, Parvati Bai, Ramnath, Sumitra Bai, Pappu alias Har Narayan, Kali Bai, Jitendra, Har Prasad, Rani, Nikhil, Renu and Geeta Bai suffered injuries from simple to grievous. The Claims Tribunal also held the claimants were entitled to file claim petitions. It also found that the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers against payment of fare, thereby committing breach of policy conditions and the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The Claims Tribunal also exonerated the insurance company from payment of compensation since the vehicle was carrying excess passengers, driver and owner of the vehicle having committed breach of policy conditions. However, it could not be proved that driver Prasanna Kumar Jain did not possess valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Consequently, compensation has been awarded to the claimants carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the dates of claim petitions. This award has been challenged by the claimants through these appeals and it is submitted that compensation be enhanced and made payable by the insurance company.