( 1 ) BOTH these appeals may be disposed of by this common judgment as they arise from common judgment passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal in two Claim Petitions arising out of the same accident. F. A. No. 327 along with 328 of 1996 decided on 14/2/2006. (Aurangabad)

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, one Shankar Indasrao along with his daughter Kumodini was proceeding on his bicycle on 5-9-1982 at about 9. 30 a. m. At that time, a truck bearing No. MPI 3980 came from opposite direction in high speed. The truck came to the wrong side of the road from its direction and dashed against bicycle, due to which said Shankar and his daughter fell down with their bicycle and both were run over by the truck. In the result, both of them died on the spot. Widow and three children of Shankar filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 23 of 1983 claiming compensation for the death of Shankar, who was serving as teacher before death. Widow of Shankar also filed Motor Accident Claim petition No. 24 of 1983 seeking compensation for the death of her daughter in the said accident. The petitions were contested. Rajaram, the respondent No. 1 in the said petitions was said to be driver of the truck. The truck was registered in the name of respondent No. 2-A Gyarsilal Agrawal and the truck was insured with respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Company. However, it was contended that before the date of accident, Gyarsilal had sold away the said truck to respondent No. 2 Hiralal. Therefore, initially, the petitions were filed against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being the driver, purchaser of the vehicle Hiralal and the insurance Company. Later on, Gyarsilal, registered owner of the truck was also impleaded as respondent No. 2-A in both the petitions. While it was denied by the respondents that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver, it was also contended on behalf of the registered owner and insurance Company that truck was sold away to Hiralal prior to the date of accident and the driver was under the employment of respondent No. 2 and therefore, neither the registered owner nor the Insurance Company were liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended that cyclist himself was responsible for the accident because he was proceeding with double-seat as well as a gunny bag containing Bajra on the carrier of bicycle.

( 3 ) SEVERAL issues were framed by the learned tribunal and after hearing oral and documentary evidence, the learned tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and not due to any negligence on the part of cyclist. It was also held that in spite of agreement for sale of the truck, ownership of the truck was still with the registered owner and, therefore, registered owner Gyarsilal was liable on the principle of vicarious liability and the Insurance Company was bound to indemnify him. With these findings, taking into consideration the income and age of deceased Shankar and the loss of dependency of the petitioners, the learned tribunal passed an award directing the truck driver, registered owner and the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 1,08,800/- with interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of filing of petition, as compensation, in Claim Petition No. 23 of 1983. The learned tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- on account of death of daughter, to the petitioner, in Claim Petition No. 24 of 1983.

( 4 ) FIRST Appeal Nos. 327 of 1996 and 328 of 1996 are filed against awards passed in Claim Petition Nos. 23 of 1983 and 24 of 1983 respectively. The original respondent No. 3 Insurance Company and original respondent No. 2-A registered owner of the truck preferred these two appeals and they were shown as appellant Nos. 1 and 2. However, lateron in First Appeal No. 328 of 1996, the appellant No. 2 Gyarsilal was transposed as respondent No. 4. Therefore, for the sake of conveyance, parties will be referred as per their original status.

( 5 ) WHI

Click Here to Read the rest of this document