RADHABAI Vs. H K SIDDIQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are common appeals arising out of a common accident that occurred on 1.6.1998 between a jeep bearing registration No. MP 17-B 1451 and dumper bearing No. MP 27-B 3599 which resulted in death of the driver of the jeep Santlal and one Lakesh- war and injuries to passengers of both the vehicles. The admitted facts of the case are that H.K. Siddiqui was the owner of the jeep bearing No. MP 17-B 1451 whereas Daljeet Singh was the owner of the dumper bearing No. MP 27-B 3599. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of the jeep whereas Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of the dumper and hence for the sake of convenience the appeals are bunched together and decided by this common order which shall govern all the cases.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that at around 6 o'clock on 1.6.1998 on Johila Bridge near Pali Nawrozabagh Marg there was a collision between a jeep bearing No. MP 17-B 1451 and dumper bearing No. MP 27-B 3599 as a result of which as already stated above the driver of the jeep Santlal died along with another passenger Lakeshwar on the spot while the other claimants received injuries. The claimants injured in the jeep alleged that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the dumper driver Ramesh Kumar who driving rashly and negligently had caused the accident. The matter was reported at Police Station, Pali and crime registered at No. 73 under sections 337 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and as a result of the said accident all the claimants had filed claim case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Umaria. The owner of the jeep H.K. Siddiqui, non-applicant No. 1, filed written statement in the aforesaid claim cases and admitted the accident and stated that the jeep was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shahdol Branch, non-applicant No. 2. She alleged that the driver of the jeep deceased Santlal was driving the jeep in a controlled and proper manner when the alleged dumper coming from the opposite direction of Birsinghpur Pali being driven by Ramesh Kumar, non-applicant No. 3, collided with the jeep as a result of which the jeep overturned. The owner also stated that the driver of the jeep had been warned not to induct passengers and that he also held a valid and legal driving licence and hence under the circumstances insurance company New India Assurance Co. Ltd., non-applicant No. 2, as well as the other non-applicants were responsible for the accident and as such owner H.K. Siddiqui was not liable to pay the compensation as alleged. Ramesh Kumar and Daljeet Singh, non- applicant Nos. 3 and 4, the driver and owner of the dumper did not file reply despite notice and were proceeded ex parte. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., non- applicant No. 2, insurer of the jeep filed written statement denying its liability stating that the jeep was being plied contrary to the conditions of the policy by inducting passengers and the jeep driver also did not possess a legal and valid driving licence at the time of the accident and hence the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. Non-applicant No. 5 the insurer of the alleged dumper admitted that the dumper was insured with the insurance company. However denied liability stating that since the driver of the dumper did not have a valid driving licence and the owner knew about the same it was a gross violation of the conditions of policy and hence the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) On appreciation of the evidence the Tribunal came to a conclusion that since all the claimants, who were also eyewitnesses submitted that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the dumper and since the owner and driver of the dumper remained ex parte and did not contradict the evidence the Claims Tribunal inevitably concluded that on the basis of these facts on the alleged date of the accident the deceased Santlal did not hold a valid driving licence and was plying the vehicle as a taxi. The Tribunal so surmised that he was also equally responsible along with the driver of the dumper Ramesh Kumar, non-applicant No. 3, for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving and held that it was a case of composite negligence. Tribunal further held that since the jeep was being plied contrary to conditions of policy by utilizing the vehicle for purposes of taxi and inducting passengers for fare completely exonerated the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation. Regarding the dumper on the basis of the facts that Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., non-applicant No. 5, had examined Assistant R.T.O., Jhansi who had deposed that there was no valid licence in the name of Ramesh Kumar, non-applicant No. 3, the trial court inferred that the driving licence produced was fake and the alleged dumper was being driven against the conditions of the policy and exonerated the insurer of the dumper Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. also from its liability to pay the compensation. Thus, both the insurance companies were exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. Thereafter the claims of rest of the claimants were decided on the basis of the evidence by holding that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally liable for payment of compensation and held the non-applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the various amounts computed and assessed after taking the evidence on record.