NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these appeals have arisen out of a common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Solan as such these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Vehicle, i.e., bus No. DL 1-P 6566 being insured with appellant and owned by Sachitra Bhalla at the time of accident under a legal and valid policy was not disputed at the time of hearing of this appeal. Dharam Paul driver of the tractor in question and Dheru alias Gian Chand owner of maize crop, having died as a result of this accident, was also not disputed at the time of hearing on behalf of the appellant.

(3.) Dr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when both these cases were pending before the learned Tribunal below his client was permitted to contest the claim of the respondents- claimants under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Record of case of Geeta Devi and others, shows that application had been filed, and also a statement of learned counsel for the respondents-claimants was recorded that he has no objection to the same being allowed. But there is no order to that effect, whereas order allowing the application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is there in the case of Raj Kumari and others. Both cases were consolidated as is evident from the record of the Tribunal.