SHANKERLAL Vs. SHANKERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 27.4.1982 whereby the learned lower court has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,500/ - in favour of claimant -Respondent No. 1 against the Appellant and has rejected the claim of the claimant -Respondent No. 1 against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The amount of the claim has been made payable with 6 per cent interest per annum from 3.10.1977.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that the claimant -Respondent No. 1 Shankerlal was going to Sheoganj alongwith his companions Prabhu, Mangilal, Tararam, Liladhar and Pu -Miraj on three cycles at about 9.30 p.m. on 2.4.1978 to see a picture at Sheoganj. When they reached the 'Jawai Bridge', on account of an up gradient in the road of the bridge, they got down from their cycles. It is alleged that from the opposite side, i.e., from Sheoganj side, a car came at a fast speed and struck against the cycle of claimant -Respondent No. 1 Shankerlal. That car was bearing No. RJQ 3191. It was an Ambassador car and was driven by Appellant Shankerlal. It struck against the cycle of claimant -Respondent No. 1 Shankerlal, by which he received two grievous injuries and five simple injuries. It is alleged that the car was being driven with such a high speed that it dragged the injured to a distance of about 30 feet and when his leg released from the bumper of the car, he fell down and that is how his life was saved. He was then shifted to Sumerpur Hospital where he remained as an indoor patient for quite some time. According to the claimant -Respondent No. 1, his companions Prabhu and Liladhar also got injuries but this claim does not relate to them. It is alleged that this vehicle is owned by non -applicant -Respondent No. 2 Magharam and it is insured with non -applicant -Respondent No. 3. The claimant -Respondent No. 1 has preferred a claim for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - on account of the injuries that have been received by him.

(3.) MR . M.L. Kala, Learned Counsel for the non -applicant -Appellant has submitted that reply sent by post cannot be considered. If non -applicant -Respondent No. 2 Magharam had put in appearance in the court and filed the reply, it could have been considered but as the reply has been received by post, no notice of such a reply can be taken by the court. So far as the insurance company, i.e., non -applicant -Respondent No. 3 is concerned, it has taken the plea that it has come to know that non -applicant -Respondent No. 2 Magha -ram has sold his vehicle to Appellant Shankerlal before 2.4.1978. It has further submitted that although it is true that originally, this car was owned by Defendant No. 2 Magharam but when it has been sold to the Appellant by non -applicant -Respondent No. 2 then no privacy of contract existed between the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 and, therefore, Respondent No. 3 is not liable to any compensation. It has also been claimed that on the date of the accident, this vehicle was not insured. It was also conceded that the driver was not having any valid licence for driving the car and, therefore, the Respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation.