LAWS(RAJ)-2011-2-85

ONKARI Vs. AKBAR HUSSAIN

Decided On February 25, 2011
ONKARI Appellant
V/S
AKBAR HUSSAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these misc. appeals relate to the common award dated 9.8.1996 passed in Claim Petition Nos. 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, 251, 257 of 1990 and 3 of 1991 by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk, (in short 'the M.A.C.T.'), they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 20.9.1990 at about 8 a.m. jeep No. RRR 4211 was going to Bhilwara and when it reached Mendwas it dashed against truck No. RSR 2577. This accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep with excessive speed by its driver, i.e., Akbar Hussain, who is respondent No. 1 and due to sudden stopping of the truck in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, respondent No. 6. In the accident Dilip Bhargava, Moti, Samunder Singh, Jethanand, Prem Chand, Kamla and Noor Mohammed died and Shahjade Miyan sustained serious injuries. Shahjade Miyan and the legal representatives of Moti, Samunder Singh, Jethanand, Prem Chand, Kamla and Noor Mohammed filed separate claim petitions, which were consolidated and the same were decided by the common award dated 9.8.1996 of the M.A.C.T.

(3.) In the claim petitions filed by the claimants, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement. It was stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and the owner and driver and insurance company of the truck were liable for compensation. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, in its written statement stated that the jeep was insured with them as a private vehicle and only 6 persons were to travel in the vehicle whereas it was used for carrying 10 passengers and it was stated that it was only liable to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 and since it was a case of breach of policy hence no liability can be fastened on the insurance company.