VIJAY SINGH Vs. MOHAMMED ASLAM & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these misc. appeals relate to award dated 4.12.2004 passed by Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Beawar (Addl. District Judge Fast track Beawar (sic) short MACT) in MACT cases Nos. 399/2004, 400/2004, 401/2004, 402/2004, 403/2004, 404/2004, 405/2004 and 407/2004, they are being disposed by this common judgment. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 14.6.99 Sualal, Gulabdevi, Geeta, Vijay Singh, Manjudevi, Miss Laxmi, Amrit Singh, Smt. Doli and Chhittar were travelling in Jeep No. RJ 19/1 C 0185 to Mangliavas. The respondent No. 1 was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and hit a truck. On account of which the accident took place resulting in death of Sualal and Gulabdevi and claimants Geeta, Vijay Singh, Manju Devi, Miss Laxmi, Amrit Singh, Smt. Doli and Chhitar received injuries on their bodies. On account of this case No. 120/99 was lodged at Police Station Mangliavas and investigation challan was filed against the respondent No. 1 before the concerned court. On account of death of Gulabdevi and Sualal, legal heirs of these two filed claim petitions and claimants Geeta, Vijay Singh, Manjudevi, Miss Laxmi, Amrit Singh, Smt. Doli and Chhitar filed claim petitions claiming compensation for the injuries received by them.

(3.) The respondent No. 1, the driver and respondent No. 2 owner of the Jeep could not appear on 7.12.99 and no reply was filed on their behalf. The respondent No. 3 filed reply to the claim petitions denying the accident and stated that at that time the respondent No. 1 driver of the Jeep was not having valid and effective licence and was driving the jeep for commercial purposes and hence the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, issue No. 1 was decided by the MACT in a way that this accident has occurred only because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 was exonerated from the liability of paying compensation as on the date of accident the respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective licence and the Jeep was used for commercial purposes. The respondent No. 2 was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and two months time was granted to him for paying the compensation.