RAM PARTAP Vs. GULESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that on intervening night of 23/24/7/1999, Ramesh Kumar, Giani Ram @ Gian Singh and Hari Singh were going to Hisar in a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-07-C0475 which was being driven by Kartar Singh. When the jeep reached in the area of Village Peeranwali, then, bus No.RJ-10-P-0987 (hereinafter referred to as offending bus) driven by respondent No.1-Gulesh Kumar in a rash and negligent manner came from Hisar side and struck against the jeep, resultantly jeep turned turtle. All the occupants of the jeep suffered multiple injuries and they died at the spot. The matter was reported to the police by Balbir Singh on 24/7/1999, which formed the basis for registration of FIR No.413 for offences under Ss. 279 and 304-A of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Hisar.

(2.) Legal representatives of the deceased had filed separate claim petitions. Smt. Simla Devi @ Dholan widow and Surender minor son of Kartar Singh had filed claim petition No.45 of 1999. In the said claim petition, they had impleaded Gulesh Kumar-driver, Sita Ram-owner and United India Insurance Company Ltd.,-insurer of the offending bus as respondents. Similarly, Ram Partap-father and Smt. Girdawari-mother of Ramesh Kumar deceased had brought claim petition No.46 of 1999 against those very respondents, whereas, Smt. Saroj-widow, Vikrantminor son, Suman Rani, Raman Rani and Priyanka, minor daughters and Smt. Gomti Devi mother of deceased Giani Ram had brought claim petition No.47 of 1999 and Smt. Vidya-widow, Raj Bala-minor daughter, Sharda, Kuldeep and Krishan, minor sons of Hari Singh had brought claim petition No.48 of 1999. All the claim petitions having arisen out of the same accident, were disposed of by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, vide a single award passed on 2/8/2001.

(3.) The claim petitions were contested by all the three respondents. Though, written statement were filed by them separately in all the cases but those were on similar lines. In the written statement submitted on behalf of respondent No.1-Gulesh Kumar, driver, he denied that he had caused any accident by driving the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner, rather, he alleged that he had been roped in wrongly at behest of certain influential and politically strong persons. He had taken various legal objections also. In the written statement submitted on behalf of respondent No.2-Sita Ram, owner of the bus, he came up with a version that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of jeep by Kartar Sigh and not due to any fault of respondent No.1 in driving the bus. He had also taken various legal objections, contending that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of the jeep. He too prayed for dismissal of the petitions. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3- Insurance Company, while denying the material assertions in the claim petitions, it was contended that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation for the reason that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the claim petitions were bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.