JAYA BEN Vs. GAFFAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these five special appeals are being decided by a common judgment as they all arise out of same accident that took place on 8.4.1972 and in all these special appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved.

(2.) All these five special appeals under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 have been filed by the appellants-petitioners against the judg- ment dated 9.7.1985 passed by the learned single Judge of this court by which the learned single Judge while dismissing the five appeals filed by Gaffar Khan (respon- dent No. 1), reduced the quantum of com- pensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in each case and also dismissed the cross-objections filed by the appellants-petitioners and also held both insurance companies not liable.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to these spe- cial appeals are as follows: On 8.4.1972, Jaya Ben, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 28 of 1985 along with others, namely, Kirti Ben, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 32 of 1985, Rama Laxmi, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 33 of 1985, Lalita Ben, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 31 of 1985 and Bhanumati, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 30 of 1985 hired a taxi bearing No. RJT 1058 at Falna Station for going to Ranakpur. The owner of the said taxi was Gaffar Khan (respondent No. 1) and its driver was Deva Ram (respondent No. 4) and the said taxi was insured with United India Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. (for short 'the insurance company'), respondent No. 3. The bus bearing No. RJT 1920, the owner of which was deceased Akram Khan (respondent No. 2) and its driver was Punaram (respondent No. 6) and the said bus was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the assurance company'), respondent No. 5 was coming from the opposite direction and both the vehicles collided, as a result of which all the five appellants-petitioners suffered injuries. All five injured appellants-petitioners then filed separate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the respondents-non- petitioners claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by them due to collision of both the vehicles. In the claim petitions, separate written statements were filed by the respondents- non-petitioners and the assurance company of the bus, respondent No. 5 took the stand that the policy of insurance in respect of the bus has been revoked and lapsed on the transfer of the vehicle by the owner of that vehicle. It is further submitted that there being no privity of contract in between the transferee and the assurance company, there could be no more valid insurance policy in existence in respect of the said vehicle at the material time and, therefore, the respondent No. 5, assurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. The insurance company of the car No. RJT 1058, i.e., respondent No. 3 took the stand in its written statement that this insurance company is also not liable to pay any compensation under section 96 (2) (a) and (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old), as the policy of the vehicle No. RJT 1058 is void on the ground that the insured had obtained it by non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular in the manner that though the said car was insured as a private car, but it was being used by the owner of that car as a taxi. Hence, the insurance company, respondent No. 3 is also not liable to pay any compensation. The Claims Tribunal framed the issues in all the claim petitions separately, though identical in nature and decided them separately through its judgment and award dated 24.12.1981 and awarded the following compensation to the claimants: <FRM> Spl. Appeal No. Name of claimant Amount claimed Amount of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal 28 of 1985 32 of 1985 33 of 1985 31 of 1985 30 of 1985 Jaya Ben Kirti Ben Rama Lax mi Lalita Ben Bhanumati Rs. 75,000 Rs. 60,000 Rs. 49,000 Rs. 36,500 Rs. 51,000 Rs. 45,000 Rs. 26,000 Rs. 27,000 Rs. 25,000 Rs. 26,000</FRM> The Claims Tribunal further came to the No. 5 are not liable to pay any compen-conclusion that both the insurance com- sation to the appellants-petitioners and pany of car, respondent No. 3 as well as thus, award was passed against the owners the assurance company of bus, respondent and drivers of both the vehicles jointly and severally and both the insurance company of car and the assurance company of bus were absolved from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved from the judgment and award dated 24.12.1981 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Gaffar Khan, respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the car, preferred five S.B. civil misc. appeals and in all the five appeals cross-objections were also filed by the present appellants-petitioners. The learned single Judge of this court vide his judgment dated 9.7.85 dismissed all the five appeals filed by Gaffar Khan (respondent No,. 1) and also dismissed the cross-objections filed by the appellants- petitioners, as not pressed. The learned single Judge in his judgment dated 9.7.85 came to the following conclusions: (1) That the insurance company of the car, respondent No. 3 as well as the assurance company of the bus, respondent No. 5 are not liable to pay amount of compensation, in view of the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal. (2) The learned single Judge reduced the amount of compensation which was awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the following manner: <FRM>Spl. Appeal No. Name of claimant Amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Amount of compensation awarded by the learned single Judge 28 of 1985 32 of 1985 33 of 1985 31 of 1985 30 of 1985 Jaya Ben Kirti Ben Rama Laxmi Lalita Ben Bhanumati Rs. 45,000 Rs. 26,000 Rs. 27,000 Rs. 25,000 Rs. 26,000 Rs. 23,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 8,000 Rs. 7,000 Rs. 9,000</FRM>