NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of eight appeals, four appeals have been preferred by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the insurance company'), whereas four have been preferred by the claimants to challenge the award dated 10.4.2002 by which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pali in six claim cases filed by the claimants, decided the claim petitions by a common award.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that six sets of the claimants submitted claim petitions as a number of persons were travelling in the truck No. RJ 19-C 0334 in the night of 9/10.6.1994 which met with an accident with a truck-trailer resulting in death of Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram and injuries to Bhanwar Lal, Laxman Nath, Dalpat Ram and Pyari Bai. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these appeals are that at the relevant time, respondent Pema Ram was driving the above-mentioned truck and because of rash and negligent driving of the said Pema Ram, truck collided with a trailer which was lying in the left side of the road. It is said that Chhotu Lal, respondent, was the owner of the truck and Pema Ram was the driver in the employment of Chhotu Lal. It has come in evidence of the witnesses produced by the claimants that there was one more driver and that was treated as main driver of the truck by the claimants and according to the claimants when the main driver was sleeping, Pema Ram took the vehicle and drove it rashly and negligently and caused the accident. It is submitted that all the persons who were in the truck at the time of the accident, were the labourers of the owner of the truck.

(3.) Due to the said accident, one F.I.R. No. 61 of 1994 was lodged in the Police Station, Guda Aindla and the challan was filed against the alleged driver Pema Ram. The truck was insured with appellant insurance company and, therefore, the claims were filed against the appellant insurance company, owner of the vehicle Chhotu Lal and the driver of the vehicle Pema Ram. The claimants in their claim petitions, on the plea of lack of knowledge about the main driver of the vehicle mentioned in the cause title that he will be impleaded upon getting the full knowledge and details about the main driver but no such driver was impleaded.