MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. ANOKHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order shall also govern the disposal of MA Nos. 1287/2010,1288/2010, 1328/2010, 1329/2010,1330/2010 and 1331/ 2010 as in all the claim petitions accident is one and the same and also parties are one and the same except the claimants.

(2.) IN MANo.2062/2009 award is dated 08/04/2009 passed by MACT, Shajapur in claim case No.79/2008 while in other cases the award is dated 29/1/2010 passed in different -different claim petitions.

(3.) SHORT facts of the case are that appellant in all the claim petitions filed claim petitions before the learned tribunal alleging that on 29/09/2007 appellant/Maheshchandra was going on his Bi -cycle at that time Metador bearing registration No.M.P. -13/E/0668 which was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No3 dashed the appellant/Maheshchandra with the result appellant sustained grievous injuries. It was prayed that claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. In other appeals appellant/Rameshchandra, Premsingh, Bherusingh, Hukumsingh, Ramchandra and Ambaram filed the claim petitions alleging that at the relevant time they were traveling in the offending vehicle. It was alleged that Rameshchandra is appellant in MA No.1287/2010 was the Cleaner while other appellants were travelling along with Buffalos (sic:Buffaloes) for its safety. It was alleged that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The claim petitions were contested by the respondents on various grounds. Respondent No.3 also contested the claim petitions alleging that since accident occurred because of negligence of Maheshchandra who was on Bi -cycle and also because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 who was not possessing the valid driving license, therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was also alleged that since the offending vehicle was insured for carrying goods and appellants were travelling as gratuitous passenger, therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petitions be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded the compensation but exonerated the respondent No.3 on the ground that respondent No. was not possessing the valid driving license and appellants except Maheshchandra was travelling in goods vehicle which is in violation of terms of the policy against which all the appeals have been filed.