RAMA NAND Vs. LALITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appeals filed under Section 110-D of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (now Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) arise out of the same award, therefore, they are decided by one order.

(2.) AS stated in Appeal No. 368/90, respondents No. 1 to 6 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, against the appellant and respondents No. 7 to 11, on account of accidental death of deceased Gopal Lai, on September 9,1982. It is stated that deceased, who was working in Sheep and Wool Department, was going on a cycle in normal speed. It is further stated that the deceased was on his correct side of the road. When he reached near Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, a Bus bearing No. RRL 1924 owned by the appellant, which is said to have been rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 2, hit the deceased cyclist from behind, as a result of which he fell on the road. At the same time, a Tractor, bearing No. PUW 3663, was also coming from the same direction, which is said to have been driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 8, ran over the body of the deceased and crushed him, as a result of which, he died instantaneously. The tractor is owned by respondent No. 7. The New India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 11, with which the tractor was insured, raised a defence that respondent No. 8, the driver of the tractor, had no valid licence, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay an" amount to the claimants. The National Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 10, w'. h which the bus mentioned above, was insured, claimed that the bus was not at fault, but, in any case, as per provisions of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'MV Act'), it is not liable to pay more than Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Tribunal, in its award dated November 7,1988, while deciding issue No. 1, apportioned the negligence to the extent of 70% of 30% of the bus and the tractor drivers respectively. It further held while deciding issue No. 5 that since the tractor driver had no valid licence, therefore, the Insurance Company-respondent No. 11, was not liable to pay any compensation. While deciding issues No. 3 and 6, a sum of Rs. 87,000/- along with interest has been awarded to the claimants. The National Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 10, was made responsible to pay to the extent of limited liability amounting to Rs. 50,000/- only. For rest of the amount, both the drivers and owners of the bus and tractor have been made jointly and severally responsible for making payment to the claimant-respondents.

(3.) APPEAL No. 318/88 has been filed by registered owner of the tractor. It is submitted by Mr. M.M. Panjan, learned Counsel, that the tractor was being driver carefully and at a slow speed. It is further submitted that when the deceased was hit by the bus, he suddenly fell down on the road and the tractor over ran him. The driver of the tractor was not at fault, in any case. It is, therefore, contended that no liability, regarding payment of 30% compensation, should have been fixed on him and the Insurance Company, with which the ' tractor was insured.