RAJMAL Vs. ANANDI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to dispose of these Misc. Appeals together as they all relate to an accident that occurred on 2.8.1987 involving Bus No. RJG-6040.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 2.8.1987 Anandilal was driving scooter No. RNE-598 and his son Basantilal was a pillion rider. They were proceeding towards the Dak Bungalow. From the opposite direction Jakir Flussain, cleaner driving rashly and negligently the above bus, came and brought the bus from the pakka road to foot-path and struck against the scooter on which Basantilal and Anandi Lai were sitting. In the process it also injured Jagdish who was standing at some distance with a cycle. On account of the above accident, the above scooter caught fire and Jagdish sustained burn injuries. The scooter was also extensively damaged. The respondents Anandi Lai, Basanti Lai and Jagdish each filed an application under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation for the injuries caused to them by the above accident. Kanhaiyalal filed another similar application claiming compensation on account of damage caused to the above scooter. Rajmal was the owner of the above bus and Shri Kishan Singh was its driver. The above bus was insured with the respondent No. 4. All the four claim petitions came to be decided by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara by order dated 2.5.1994. According to the order dated 2.5.1994 the learned Tribunal awarded the following:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_100_LAWS(RAJ)3_1998(1).html</FRM>

(3.) It may be stated that the learned Tribunal passed the above award jointly and severally against the respondents 1, 2 and 3.The applications as against respondent No. 4 were dismissed because it was held that at the time of the accident, the bus was (contd. on col. 2) being driven by Jakir Hussain who possessed no driving license. Under Sec. 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (New Sec. 149(2)(a)(ii) of 1988), the Insurance Company can dispute its liability on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the driver driving the offending vehicle had no driving license.