GEETABAI Vs. HUSSAINKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimants under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award dated December 20, 1977, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratlam, in Claim Case No. 7 of 1975.

(2.) THE material facts are as follows :

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 did not appear before the Tribunal and was proceeded with ex parte. Respondent No. 2 contested the claim on the ground that he had already sold the tempo to one Ujagarsingh and was not the owner of the tempo at the time of the accident. He also denied that respondent No. 1 was his employee and the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the tempo. Respondent No. 3 also contested the claim on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the tempo at the time of the accident. Both respondents Nos. 2 and 3 admitted that the tempo was insured with respondent No. 3 in the name of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4, Ujagarsingh, who was added as party to the application, subsequently contested the claim on the ground that he was not the owner of the tempo at the time of the accident and that respondent No. 1 was not his employee.