NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANJANA SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a batch of 41 appeals filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, out of which 38 appeals are by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and three by the claimants. The appeals arise out of the separate judgments and awards dated 27.3.1997, 31.7.97, 15.1.1999 and 10.5.1999 respectively, rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Shimla and Rampur Bushehr in different claim petitions, whereby the compensation has been awarded in favour of the victims who received injuries and legal representatives/heirs of the persons who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.96. The facts and law involved in these appeals are identical and learned counsel for the respective parties advanced their arguments in common and, therefore, we propose to decide these appeals by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under: On 4.3.1996 bus bearing registration No. HP-06-1245 owned by respondent No. 2, Secretary, Tehsil Co-operative Union, Nankhari, and being driven by respondent No. 3, Moti Ram, driver was going from Narkanda to Nankhari. The bus was insured with the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter for short 'the insurance company'). On the way when the bus reached near a place known as 'Gaman', it went off the road and had fallen down into a nallah, as a result of which some of the passengers had died due to the injuries and many other passengers sustained injuries on their person. The injured were taken to Government Dispensary, Nankhari and subsequently, they were shifted to Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Shimla, where they remained under treatment in respect of the injuries which were sustained by them as a result of the accident. The victims of the accident and the legal representatives/heirs of the deceased had filed their respective claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Shimla and Rampur Bushehr. The claimants in their claim petitions have alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver and they claimed different amounts of compensation.

(3.) The respondent owner of the vehicle in question contested the claim petitions on the ground that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. It is stated that the accident had taken place due to mechanical defect but it is admitted that the bus in question had met with an accident on 4.3.96. It is further stated that the injured persons and the deceased persons were not travelling in the bus at the time of the accident. The respondent driver in his separate written statement has stated that he was not driving the bus in question at the time of the accident and it was one Mathu Ram who was driving the bus in question. The appellant insurance company in its preliminary objections pleaded that the vehicle in question was not driven by the authorised driver, that the vehicle did not have fitness certificate and the vehicle was being used for a purpose other than that specified in the route permit and it was also being used for the purpose not covered under the terms of the policy of the insurance and, therefore, the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation. On merits, all the averments made in the claim petitions were denied for want of knowledge. However, the appellant insurance company alternatively pleaded that the amounts of compensation claimed by the claimants were highly exaggerated and there was no relevance between the loss suffered and the compensation claimed. Thus, the insured, driver and the appellant insurance company have stated that the claimants were not entitled for compensation.