MUNNI AND ORS Vs. RASID ALI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 6.6.2003 passed by the MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in claim case No.630/99, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,37,000/- as compensation under different heads in favour of claimant-appellants.

(2.) The brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that two claim petitions under Section 140/166 of the M.V. Act came to be filed by different claimants before the Tribunal with the allegations that in the night of 25.12.1998 deceased Kailash Sharma husband of Smt. Munni Devi and Vinod Kumar left for Udaipur by Truck bearing No.R.J. 14-G-6196 and on 26.12.1996 at about 6.30 morning when they were going through the jurisdiction of Rustampur, Police Station-Rajavpur at that time a Truck bearing No. H.R.03-160, which was being driven by the driver of the said truck in a rash and negligent manner came and collided with Truck No. R.J. 14-G 6169 as a result of which Kailash Chand and Vinod Kumar died. It was alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Truck bearing No. H.R.03-160. It was alleged that non-petitioner No.1 is the driver of vehicle No. H.R.03-160, non-petitioner No.2 is the owner of the said vehicle which was insured with the non-petitioner No.3-Insurance Company, non-petitioner No.4 is the owner of vehicle No. R.J. 14-G 6169 which is insured with the Insurance Company (non-petitioner No.5). Therefore, non-petitioners Nos.1 to 5 are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally.

(3.) The non-petitioner No. 3 Insurance Company filed their reply and contended that fact that at the time of accident driver (non-petitioner No.1) was having valid non-expired driving licence relating to vehicle No. H.R.03-160 and was driving the vehicle under the employment and for the benefit of owner of the said vehicle had to be proved. It was also pleaded that the deceased was driver of the vehicle as mentioned in the claim petition, therefore, the claim of the claimants as per Workmen Compensation Act comes within the jurisdiction of Labour Court which can hear the matter. It was alleged that it appears that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No. R.J. 14-G 6169 and therefore the matter should be decided on the basis of collision between two vehicles and compensation may be determined on the basis of contributory liability. It was also pleaded that the Claimants and non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The non-petitioner denied the averments made by the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim with cost.