RAISINGH Vs. ANIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other 2 connected appeals being M. A. Nos. 2066 and 2082 of 2006 because all these 3 appeals arose out of common award passed by Claims Tribunal in relation to one accident.

(2.) THIS is an appeal filed by claimant under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short called 'the Act') against an award dated 29. 4. 2006 passed by the Thirteenth member, M. A. C. T. , Indore in Claim Case no. 119 of 2005. By impugned award, the tribunal has dismissed all the three claim petitions including the one filed by claimant (i. e. , appellant herein) under section 163-A of the Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in accident. So the short question that arises for consideration in these 2 connected appeals is whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petitions filed by claimant under section 163-A of the Act and if not then whether the claimants-appellants are entitled to claim compensation for the injuries and death as per provisions of the motor Vehicles Act?

(3.) ON 15. 10. 2004, 3 persons namely, one Meharban Singh, Raisingh (appellant of M. A. No. 2065 of 2006) and Sanjay (appellant of M. A. No. 2066 of 2006) were going on scooter bearing No. MP 09-NE 5792 belonging to R-1/na-1 and insured with R-2/na-2. Meharban was driving the scooter and other two, i. e. , Raisingh and sanjay were pillion riders. It is at that time, one Eicher truck came with speed and hit the scooter. All the three fell down. Meharban died and other two, i. e. , Raisingh and sanjay suffered injuries. This incident gave rise to filing of 3 claim petitions by three claimants. So far as Raisingh and Sanjay were concerned, they filed their respective claim petitions under section 163-A of the act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in accident whereas the legal representatives of Meharban Singh filed a claim petition under section 163-A ibid claiming compensation for his death out of which M. A. No. 2082 of 2006 arises. All the three claim petitions were filed against the owner of scooter (NA-1/r-1) and its insurer (NA-2/r-2) on which these 3 were travelling and met with an accident. It was resisted by non-applicants, inter alia, on the ground that firstly, no liability can be fastened on the owner and insurer of the scooter (vehicle) in question because the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of driver of Eicher truck and hence cause of action to claim compensation arose against the driver, owner and insurer of Eicher truck and not against the owner and insurer of scooter in question. It was also contended that when admittedly, person driving the vehicle scooter, i. e. , meharban Singh had no driving licence and 3 persons were going on scooter, i. e. , one driver and 2 as pillion riders, a clear case of breach of policy has occurred and hence no liability can be fastened on the owner and insurer of scooter, i. e. , NA-1 and NA-2.