JUDGMENT - NAIK A.B., J.:---The First Appeal Nos. 153 and 156 of 1984 can be disposed of by the common judgment as this relates to the accident which took place on 14-4-1978. The facts involved in these appeals are very short and they can be stated in brief:

An Ambassador car bearing Registration No. MRH 9829 belonging to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation was coming from Nanded to Aurangabad. The said car was being driven by Kadar Shaikh who was in employment of M.I.D.C. The occupant of the car namely Moreshwar Karmarkar and Govind Kulkarni, were also in service of M.I.D.C. as Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer respectively. The Ambassador car was proceeding towards Aurangabad from Nanded. A Truck bearing Registration No. MHT 5687 owned by the present appellant was being driven by the respondent No. 5 i.e. Karnalsingh. The said truck was proceeding to Hyderabad from Bhavnagar. The accident took place on Nanded-Basmat-Aurangabad road near 426/600 kilometer stone. The place of accident is 25 km. from Nanded. It is the case of the claimants that the truck was being driven by Karnalsingh gave dash to the said car by which all the three occupants of the car received several serious injuries. Due to the said accident the injured namely the driver and the two occupants breathed their last. Moreshwar died on 6-5-1978. Govind Kulkarni died on 17-4-1978 and Kadar Shaikh died on 15-4-1978. It has come on record that at the time of death Mr. Karmarkar was of 42 years of age, Kulkarni was on 52 years and Kadar 36 years. Their monthly income by way of salary was Rs. 1,478/-, Rs. 2078/- and Rs. 457.30 Ps. respectively.

2. The heirs and legal representatives of all the three deceased filed claim petitions under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded. All the claimants i.e. heirs of the deceased occupants of the car claimed following amount as compensation.

A) The claimant in Claim No. 6 i.e. heirs of deceased Karmarkar claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. B) Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 475 by Govind Kulkarni claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and C) Claim Petition No. 8 filed by the heirs of Kadar Shaikh claimed as compensation of Rs. 1,60,581/-.

3. After receipt of the applications, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal issued notices/summons to the owner and driver of the truck who was respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in all the applications. Respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company with whom the truck was insured.

4. The owner and the driver filed their written statement vide Exh. 28 and 29. They contended that the truck was not being driven negligently by the driver. They contended that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the car which was being driven by Sk. Kadar. They contended that the truck which was being driven by Sk. Kadar (sic) was proceeding with normal speed and the driver was in full control of the vehicle. It was contended that the Ambassador car was in a high speed and the driver of the car would not control his vehicle and that vehicle dashed against the truck on account of which all the three sustained severe injuries and subsequently they succumbed to their injuries. It was contended that it was not the fault of the truck driver, it was the driver of the Ambassador car who was responsible for the accident. It was specifically contended by the driver of the truck about the negligence.

"As a matter of fact speed of the truck was normal. It is not this respondent No. 2 who could not control his vehicle but it was Sk. Kadar driver of car MRH 9829 who could not control his car due to high speed and which dashed against the truck."

Therefore, they claimed that the claim which being made is exorbitant and they are not entitled for the said claim.

5. The Insurance Company by its written statement has objected the claim and it is contended that the liability of the company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in respec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document