UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RATANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Petition Nos. 896/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Katori), 897 of 1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Javitri), 898; 1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Udhalsingh); 899/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chotu); 900/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Veermati); 901/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kiran); 902/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sudamabai), 905/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Meena); 906/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Rajabeti); 907/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mangaliya) and 908/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mayadevi).

(2.) All the aforesaid petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the interim award passed under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, the 'Act') by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena (for short, the 'Tribunal') directing payment of fixed sum of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of nine cases of death and Rs. 12,000/- in respect of three cases of disablement on the principle of 'no fault liability.'

(3.) The facts giving rise to these petitions are thus : On 8-8-1991 at about 5-30 p.m. the deceased and the injured persons were travelling as passengers in Tempo No. MPG 9947 which was going from Morena to Kadhiyahar on Morena-Ambah Road; truck No. CPW 7506, owned by M/s Agrawal Construction Company, Morena, driven by one Lochansingh, was coming from the opposite direction, which dashed against the said Tempo causing severe multiple injuries to 16 passengers travelling in the tempo. Out of sixteen passengers, 10 died as a result of the said accident. The legal representatives of the deceased persons and three injured persons presented 12 separate claim applications under S. 166 of the Act before the Tribunal against the owner, driver and the insurer of the truck. The petitioner and the respondent, National Insurance Company (for short, 'NICO') were impleaded as insurers of the truck. Except in claim case No. 64/1991, out of which M.P. No. 907/1992 has arisen, the owner, driver and the insurer of the tempo were not made parties to the other claim cases. Along with the application u/S. 166, the claimants also filed applications under S. 140 for interim award of a fixed compensation on the principle of 'no fault liability.'