UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SAMAARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as 'the Act') against the common judgment and award dtd. 11/8/2016(hereinafter as 'the impugned award') passed by learned MACT whereby the learned tribunal has partly allowed claims of the respective claimants in MAC Case no. 414/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 413/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 416/2015 (Death matter), MAC Case No. 417/2015 (Death matter), MAC Case No. 415/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 419/2015 (Death Matter), MAC Case No. 589/2015 (Death matter) and MAC Case No. 418/2015 (Death matter) and the Appellant/Insurance Company along with the Owner and driver of the offending vehicle has been held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. These appeals have been filed seeking quashing of the impugned award in respect of the above Claim petitions. As these appeals arise out of the same accident the facts of appeal no. S.B. C.M.A. No. 2729/2016 are being taken, illustratively.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26/8/2012 the claimants, after getting Eye Surgery/Eye Treatment at an Eye Health Camp organized at Barmer Netra Jyoti Hospital, Barmer were returning to their respective destinations along with their relatives onboard the Mini Bus bearing registration no. RJ04 PA 0580(hereinafter as 'the offending vehicle') of Barmer Jan Seva Samiti, which was being driven negligently and at high speed by Tulcharam (hereinafter as 'Driver/Respondent No. 2') and at around 12:00PM - 12:30PM on 26/8/2012, the vehicle turned turtle as a result of burst of its rear tyre near Surat ki Beri on N.H.-15. As a result of the accident some of the passengers travelling in the vehicle died and others sustained injuries. On the written complaint of one- Ramesh who was also traveling in the vehicle, the police registered FIR No. 151/12 and after investigation submitted a Chargesheet against the Driver/Respondent No. 2. The claimants filed their respective claim petitions before the learned tribunal seeking compensation.

(3.) It was averred in the claim petitions by the claimants that Omprakash (Respondent no. 3/Owner) and Driver/Respondent No. 2 are the owner and driver of the vehicle respectively and the vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company therefore, they all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.