BALDEV RAJ Vs. DHARMO RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As before the learned Single Judge, so also before us, the question that has been debated in all these appeals is as to whether the Insurance Company can be held liable for payment of compensation awarded to the claimants. Inasmuch as in all these appeals bearing Nos. 2253 to 2257 of 1989 the only question is as referred to above, we propose to decide the same by common order.

(2.) Brief facts, for determination of the controversy involved in these appeals, would reveal that on May 19, 1986, Bhira deceased along with other members of his family, was standing on the bus stand Sekhup on Karnal-Assandh road. They were to attend a marriage party. Inasmuch as the bus service was disturbed on that day as a result of strike, a truck bearing registration No. RJ1-1506 coming from Assandh side was signalled to stop for lift and the driver of the truck agreed to give them lift on payment of Rs.200/-. Unfortunately, however, when the truck reached near village Charo, it went out of control and over-turned in a kacha pond. Bhira and others sustained multiple injuries and thereafter died in the hospital. The legal heirs of deceased filed applications for compensation under Section 110-A read with Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the truck, National Insurance Company and owner were made party to the petitions.

(3.) in the resultant trial, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal returned findings that the truck was owned by Man Raj who had transferred its ownership by an affidavit dated May 14, 1986 to Baldev Raj appellant and that the accident had taken place on May 19, 1986 and the transferee did not notify the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the Insurance Company. On the findings aforesaid, while dealing with inter se dispute between the owner and Insurance Company with regard to liability to pay compensation, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the insurance policy, Ex.R1 contained a specific provision that passengers could not be carried in a goods vehicle and, therefore, the compensation that had since been allowed to the claimants, was payable by the driver and owner of the vehicle jointly and severally.