NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SUGAN KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by MACT, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.4.2000 deceased Premlata, Bajrang Singh and Mewaram and claimants Laduram, Smt. Barkat Devi, Suman, Vineeta and Neelam were going in Mini Bus No. RJ-14-P-5561. At about 2.00 PM no sooner did the bus reached near Bagru Rawan, the driver of Truck No. AP 9U 1039 took it from the direction of Bagru rashly, negligently and at an excessive speed, and hit the mini bus at its wrong side, as a result of which Mini Bus turned turtle. In the said accident, Premlata, Bajrang Singh and Mewa Ram died and claimants Ladu Ram, Smt. Barkat Devi, Suman, Vineeta and Neelam sustained injuries. Thereafter claim petitions were filed, notices were issued, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed different amount in favour of the claimants and against the non claimants. The Insurance Co. has filed the aforesaid two appeals challenging the quantum of compensation.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Insurance Co. has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error of fact and of law while not considering the admitted position that there was a head on collision between the mini bus and truck and the driver of the truck was not solely responsible for causing the accident. The negligence of the truck driver might be more than 50% or any other percentage, but he was not wholly liable for happening of the accident. He has further contended that in cases of head on collision between two vehicles, total liability for payment of compensation cannot be fastened only on driver, owner and insurer of one vehicle. It is a settled position of law that while imposing the liability of payment of compensation, both the vehicles should be held equally liable. The learned Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter, hence the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set-aside. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite.