RAMASHRAY SINGH Vs. TARABATI KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 110-D(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (Act IV of 1939), (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the opposite party No. 2, the owner of the bus in question, against an award of the Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur allowing a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant Mt. Tarabati Kuer, respondent No. 1, widow of the deceased Girish Chandra Prasad a Civil Court copyist, against opposite party No. 1, the driver, who is now dead and the appeal has abated against him and his heirs; opposite party No. 2, the appellant, the owner of the bus, and opposite party No. 3. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., which was the Insurer, now respondent No. 4, making them liable both jointly or separately.

(2.) The facts, put shortly, are these:-- On 2-8-1961, the deceased Girish Chandra Prasad was crushed under the wheels of the bus driven by opposite party No. 1, respondent No. 3, Ibrahim Mistry, against whom also the appeal has abated, belonging to opposite party No. 2. Ramashray Singh, the owner of the bus, the appellant, Girish Chandra Prasad died subsequently on 3-8-1961 in the hospital. On 3-10-1961 the widow of the deceased, who is Respondent No. 1 and was applicant before the court below, Mosmtt Tarabati Kuer, made an application under Section 110(1)(b) of the Act before the Claims Tribunal under the Act at Muzaffarpur who was the District Judge of the place. On 23-11-1962 on the petition of the applicant, Respondent No. 1, to add the Insurer who is respondent No. 4 before this Court, was made before the Claims Tribunal and that application was allowed on 16-1-1963 and the Insurer company, was added as opposite Party No. 3 on 16-1-1963. It is admitted that respondent No. 4, the Insurance Company, did appeal before the Claims Tribunal and file its written statement, but did not contest the application at the time of the hearing of the application with the result that the claim of the applicant, respondent No. 1, was unresisted by the Insurance Company, opposite party No. 3, respondent No. 4. The Claims Tribunal on 20-7-1965 decided the application of the appellant respondent No. 1, in her favour and allowed it, as mentioned before, for Rs. 3,000 against all the three opposite parties making them all liable jointly or separately. Against this award the only person who has come up in appeal is opposite party No. 2, the owner of the bus, and there is no appeal either on behalf of the driver opposite party No. 1 or on behalf of the Insurance Company, opposite party No. 3; but all these persons were made respondents to the appeal here.

(3.) Mr. Surya Bhusan Prasad Singh, a junior Advocate of this court has argued the appeal admirably well and with great clarity and his argument presented was precise and to the point which shows that he was thoroughly prepared with his case.