GULDAN UIKEY Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR KAITHWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 363/10, 364/10, 366/10, 367/10, 368/10 and 369/10 filed by claimants and also MA. No. 418/10 filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (owner and driver), as in all the appeals question involved is identical in nature and also all the appeals are arising out of one accident and parties are also one and the same except the claimant. In all the appeals award under challenge is dated 27/10/09 passed by XVII AMACT, Jabalpur. Short facts of the case are that claimants in all the appeals filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 16/03/08 deceased persons were travelling in Mahendra Bolero jeep bearing registration No. MP/28 -A -2540 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 the said truck met with an accident with the result Phooldas Uike, Geetabai, Ganeshibai, Mintibai, Laltu, Gopalsingh, Rehman and Baldan sustained grievous injuries and passed away. It was alleged that the FIR was lodged by Guldan son of Laltu. It was alleged that since the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, therefore, all the claim petitions be allowed and adequate compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 wherein facts stated in the claim petitions were denied. It was alleged that if it is found proved, then respondent No. 1 was possessing license and the offending vehicle was duly insured, therefore, in that case respondent No. 3 is liable for payment of compensation. Respondent No. 3 also contested the claim petitions on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license. It was alleged that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 and the offending vehicle was being used for carrying passengers, for which neither there was permit, nor the vehicle was insured for that purpose, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation on account of violation of terms of policy. It was prayed that the claim petitions be dismissed so far as it relate to respondent No. 3. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded the compensation and also exonerated respondent No. 3 on the ground that the offending vehicle was being used in violation of terms of policy, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation, against which all the appeals have been filed.

(2.) FULL particulars of each of the case are shown in the chart herein below: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 supports the award so far as quantum is concerned and submits that no case for further enhancement is made out. It is submitted that since there is absolutely no evidence to the effect that the offending vehicle was being used for carrying passengers on hire and reward, therefore, learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating respondent No. 3. Learned counsel supports the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants in that regard and submits that the appeal filed by the appellants and also appeal filed by respondent No. 1 be allowed and findings of the learned Tribunal whereby respondent No. 3 has been exonerated be set aside.