NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAHENDRA BAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid appeals have been filed against the judgment and award passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in claim petition Nos.80/2008, 81/2008, 82/2008 and 83/2008 whereby all the claim petitions were decided together and common judgment and award were passed. Since these appeals are directed against the same judgment and award, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

(2.) Brief facts given rise to these appeals are that the four claim petitions were filed by the claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") before the Tribunal on account of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 18.10.2006 in which claimants Mahendra Baid, and Smt. Sunita Nahta had sustained injuries and Neera Baid w/o Mahendra Baid and Shri Sanjay Nahata husband of Smt. Sunita Nahata had died. It is alleged in the claim petitions that the claimants along with Neera Baid, Sanjay Nahta were travelling in an Innova bearing No.RJ 14 UA 0061 from Pushkar to Nakoda which was being driven by the claimant Mahendra Baid. As soon as they reached at Jodhpur-Jhalamand Bye-Pass Road in Sarhad Kharada, Randheer, a trailer-truck bearing No.RJ07 GA 1232 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the Innova Car, as a result of which claimants Mahendra Baid and Neera Baid had sustained injuries and Sanjay Nahata and Neera Baid succumbed to the injuries. The claim petitions filed by the claimants were partly allowed by the Tribunal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is noticeable that apart from arguing the case at length on its merits, much emphasis was laid on the fact that the learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that in two claim petitions the owner and the insurer of the Innova car were not impleaded as respondents whereas in other two claim petitions both of them were made respondents. Admittedly, an application for impleading them as the respondents to the said two claim petitions were submitted on behalf of insurer of the Truck to implead the owner and the insurer of the Innova car as respondents but the learned Tribunal vide order dated 21.02.2012 dismissed the said application mainly on two grounds. The first ground was that no negligence could be attributed to the driver of the Innova Car. The other ground was that all the four claim petitions had already been consolidated and in two of them, the owner and insurer of the Innova Car were party respondents. In my considered view, these findings of the learned Tribunal are without any merit.