RAM KUMAR ALIAS KALA Vs. UPINDER SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two connected appeals, bearing Nos. 563 and 564 of 1991 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

(2.) THE limited question that has been raised in these appeals is with regard to liability to pay compensation i. e. either by the appellant Rohtas, who was initially arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the claim petition, or by Amulya Leasing and Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Company), who was arrayed as owner of the offending vehicle - Respondent No. 2.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 also filed separate written statement and denied the averments made in para 15 of the claim petition for want of knowledge. In so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, no evidence was led and the records show, as is also the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, that after filing written statement, the finance Company took no interest in the proceedings. While determining the issue with regard to respondents' liability to pay compensation, the MACT held that it was respondents 1 and 4 i. e. driver and Rohtas, who were liable to make payment of compensation. The present appeals, are, thus, by these respondents i. e. respondents 1 and 4.