PRINCE Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to other respondents is dispensed with since there is no issue of denial of Insurance Company.

(2.) ALL the appeals relate to same accident. The claimants were injured passengers in a matador van insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It dashed against a truck which had been insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The driver of the truck had lodged a FIR contending that the driver of the matador had been negligent in dashing against a stationary truck. All the claimants gave evidence to the fact that it was only on account of the wrong parking without sufficient indication that was the cause for the accident. The tribunal found the negligence but still did not allow for any compensation after determining the same since the claimant had not disclosed any case in the petitions against the driver of the matador van but had only contended that the driver of the truck to be responsible.

(3.) I find the reasoning of the tribunal to be erroneous. Where the driver and owner of both the vehicles had been arrayed as parties and the claimant's contention was not accepted and the tribunal who had found the negligence on the part of the matador van only, it could not have dismissed it. It ought to have on the other hand, allowed the claim petition against the owner driver and the insurer of the matador van, who were parties. They ought to have been alive to the contentions raised by the other respondents.