NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAINABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 699 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 160 of 1994), 700 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 10 of 1997), 701 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 158 of 1994), 702 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 159 of 1994), 709 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 157 of 1994), C. Rev. Nos. 961 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 12 of 1997), 963 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 9 of 1997) and 965 of 1997 (Claim Case No. 11 of 1997) filed by the insurance company as they arise out of the same accident and common question of law and facts arise therein.

(2.) Facts leading to these misc. appeals and civil revisions are that on 2.4.92 Asha, her husband Natwarlal, Vimla, Baby Pinki, Radheshyam, Kanhaiyalal, Bharatsingh and others were going from Neemuch to Mandsaur travelling in jeep No. MPM 1635. Near village Thadod, truck No. CPV 5577 belonging to non-applicant Sudhabai, driven by non-applicant Ranveersingh and insured with the appellant came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the jeep as a result of which Asha, Natwarlal, Vimla and Baby Pinki died and other persons got injured. The injured and the legal representatives of the deceased persons filed Claim Case Nos. 160 of 1994, 10 of 1997, 158 of 1994, 159 of 1994, 157 of 1994, 12 of 1997, 9 of 1997 and 11 of 1997 for grant of compensation. The respondents/non-applicant owner and the appellant/non-applicant insurance company resisted the claim and averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep. The appellant, inter alia, also pleaded that the driver of the truck had no valid and effective licence on the date of accident and thereby breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was committed, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. In any case, the liability of the truck owner would not exceed 50 per cent. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. CPV 5577 by respondent/non-applicant driver. It also held that the appellant failed to prove that the driver had no valid licence and awarded compensation. The appellant filed M.A. Nos. 699 of 1997, 700 of 1997, 701 of 1997, 702 of 1997 and 709 of 1997 and Civil Revision Nos. 961 of 1997, 963 of 1997 and 965 of 1997 (where amount was not awarded) against the awards passed by the Tribunal. The claimants also filed cross-objections.

(3.) Mr. H.G. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, argued that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in closing the evidence of the appellant insurance company on 12.5.1997. The appellant had paid process fee thrice as directed by the Tribunal. But it failed to get the summons served, therefore, the appellant could not be blamed for the absence of the witnesses. He contended that the appellant could not cause appearance of R.T.O., Jhansi before the Tribunal on its own. His presence could be procured only through Tribunal for which process fee was paid. He, therefore, prayed that all the cases be remanded to the Tribunal for giving appellant an opportunity of producing its witnesses. He further prayed that the Tribunal also fell in error in not consolidating all these cases as they arise out of the same accident. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Jain, Mr. Sunil Jain and Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for the claimants, supported the order dated 12.5.1997.