RAMUBAI AND ORS. Vs. BHAGAT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these two Miscellaneous Appeals have been taken up together since they arise out of the common award and dealt by the same Court and passed common judgment. However, claims case No. 36/12 had been filed by the claimants for enhancement and claim case No. 40/12 had been filed by the Owner and driver. Both the appeals are, therefore, decided by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the claimant Amarsingh along with his brother Shankarlal was travelling in a bus bearing No. MP 13 -P -0232 from Berchha and going towards Shajapur. Sajjanlal @ Sajjanlal Luhar and applicant Mukesh were also sitting in the same bus and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, near village Peepliya Gopal bridge on the Berchha road caused the bus to turn turtle in the culvert; as a result of which all the passengers received injuries and during the treatment Amarsingh and Sajjanlal succumbed to their injuries. Hence, the legal representatives of these two deceased filed separate cases for compensation before the Tribunal. Non -applicant Nos. 1 & 2 had submitted that the bus was insured with the non -applicant No. 3 the Insurance Company and denied all the allegations and stated that a false case has been preferred against them. They even denied that deceased Amarsingh and Sajjanlal travelled as passengers.

(3.) THE Tribunal however, on considering the evidence and the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act awarded a sum of Rs. 4,11,400/ - to be paid jointly and severally by the non -applicants owner and driver, however, exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that there was no fitness certificate regarding the disputed vehicle and hence there was violation of conditions of the insurance policy and it is also registered the claim that the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insurer and hence cited several cases. The Tribunal also held that since there was a violation of condition of the policy and the Insurance Company was not liable for the compensation. The Tribunal however, awarded the above mentioned amount in Claim Case No. 36/12. Hence, the present appeals both by the claimants claiming enhancement; and by the owner and driver praying for setting aside the impugned award and for making the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation since the alleged vehicle was insured, according to the provisions of law and the owner and driver were not liable to pay the amount.