ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO Vs. SUKH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment we propose to dispose of a batch of nine appeals and one miscellaneous petition, namely, FAO (MVA) Nos. 160/98,164/98, 29/99, 30/99, 32/99, 33/99, 57/99, 147/99, 152/99 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 7 of 1999, since these arise out of one of (and) the same accident which occurred at 2.30 p.m. on June 29, 1996 involving truck bearing Registration No. HP-18-4974 in which many persons were said to have died and resulting injuries to others. It will be useful to give certain facts which are common for these cases.

(2.) Truck No. HP-18-4974 was engaged by several persons on 29th June, 1996 for carrying their tomatoes consignments to the market. The owners of the goods were travelling in the said truck owned by Bharat Sharma. When the owners of the goods were travelling in the truck with their tomatoes consignments and were returning from Kheri in the truck after obtaining G. Rs., the truck met with an accident near village Chhapang on Nahan-Rajgarh road, when it fell down on a side of the road due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. The truck in question was said to have been insured with Oriental Insurance Company-appellant herein at the time of the accident. Many persons died in the accident and others who survived received grievous injuries on their body in the accident. The dependants and the legal representatives of the deceased persons and the injured themselves filed Claim Petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Sirmour District at Nahan claiming different amount of compensation against the appellant-Company and owner of the truck.

(3.) In his written statement respondent-owner of the truck has not denied the accident or the factum of the death or injuries to the persons who had died or injured in the course of the accident. He also admitted that the victim who died in the accident or those persons who suffered injuries were travelling in the truck with their tomatoes consignments, which were loaded in the truck. However, respondent-owner has disputed the allegation of the claimants that the driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently. The employment of the deceased persons and injured and their income are not admitted by the owner in his written statement. During the proceedings of the claim petitions one Vishal Sharma who is said to be the co-owner of the truck in question was impleaded as respondent by the Tribunal below who has not filed separate reply to the claim petitions.