ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. HARVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also dispose off connected 11 appeals F. A. O. Nos. 3020 of 2005 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Roop Lal), 3021 of 2005 (The Oriental Insurance company Ltd. v. Harvinder Kaur and others), 3022 of 2005 (The Oriental Insurance Company ltd. v. Pritpal Singh and others), 3023 of 2005 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Harbhajan Singh and others), 3024 of 2005 (The oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Shashikaushal andothers),3025 of 2005 (Theorientalinsurance company Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and others), 3026 of 2005 (The Oriental Insurance Company ltd. v. Ramesh and others), 3027 of 2005 (The oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ramesh kumar and others), 3028 of 2005 (The Oriental insurance Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and others), 3029 of 2005 (The Oriental Insurance company Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and others)and 3030 of 2005, (The Oriental Insurance company Ltd. v. Dunia Devi and others), as all these appeals, arise out of a common award dated 18th February, 2005 passed by learned presiding Officer of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra in M. A. C. T. Case Nos. 128 of 2004, 125 of 2004, 129 of 2004,131 of 2004,132 of 2004,133 of 2004,134 of 2004,135 of 2004,136 of 2004, 137 of 2004, 139 of 2004 and M. A. C. T. Case No. 140 of 2004.

(2.) IT appears that on 10th April, 2001 Vijay thakur, Pritpal Singh, Harbhajan Singh, madan Lal Kaushal Bin Bahadur and his son raju, Harvinder Kaur with her husband amrik Singh and their son Roop Lai with his son Kamal and Ramesh Kumar and his mother Dhanpati, wife Rekha Devi, daughter bindu and sons Sammi and Sonu were travelling in a bus (No. HR-037-6909 ). The bus was being driven by driver-Bhoop Singh in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. At about 3 p. m. when the bus reached near Village Umri on G. T. Road and while overtaking a vehicle which was ahead of it, struck against the truck (No. HR-37-A-6755)coming from opposite side. As a result occupants of bus received injuries and the driver of the vehicle Bhoop Singh. so also occupants Vinay Thakur, Madan Lal kaushal, Amrik Singh. Dhanpati, Rekha devi, Bindu, Shammi and Sonu succumbed to these injuries, whereas Harbhajan, Pritpal, ramesh Kumar, Harvinder, Kamal, Roop lal, Bin Bahadur and Raju received serious multiple injuries. An F. I. R. No. 99 dated 10th april, 2001 under Sections 279,337,338 and 304-A, I. P. C. of the accident was lodged against the driver of the bus who died. In respect of the accident, as many as 14 claim petitions were filed claiming various amounts damages. The owner of the offending vehicle so also the insurer (National insurance Co. Ltd.) filed their written statements and also raised preliminary objections. The Tribunal framed three relevant issues namely, as regards the rash and negligent driving of the bus; entitlement of the claimants to get compensation and holding of vald licence by the driver at the time of the accident. On appreciation of rival evidence, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the vehicles namely the bus and the truck have been negligent and, therefore, they were held liable for contributory negligence. Hence, the first issue was decided in favour of the claimants. Similarly, in respect of issue No. 2 regarding entitlement of receiving compensation, the tribunal again decided in favour of the claimants, holding entitlement to get various amounts of compensation. So far as the issue relating to the liability of the Insurance company is concerned, it was held that the company did not lead any evidence to prove that the deceased driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident. Accordingly, the Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel, for the Insurance company made two-fold submission before this Court, firstly, the Presiding Officer of the tribunal is a Fast Track Judge and in the absence of a notification in terms of Section 165, he has not competent to decide claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Secondly, learned Counsel also urged that the finding of the Tribunal as regards holding of a valid licence by the driver on the date of accident suffers from inherent defect. We have also heard learned Counsel for the respondents. They have justified the award. As regards the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant, we would like to reproduce a notification dated 11th December, 1970 issued by Transport Department in official Gazette of Government of Haryana. The said notification is reproduced as under: