( 1 ) THE United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act [hereinafter referred to as the "act"], against the judgment and award made by MACT [main], Ahmedabad. Rural at Narol in MAC Application No. 520 of 1981 dated 16th April, 1983. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the finding given by the Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was 100% negligent while driving his vehicle and as a result of the same, he caused accident in question. The Tribunal has therefore held the insured as well as the appellant vicariously liable to satisfy the entire award.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT no. 1, who is hereinafter referred to as the claimant, filed MAC Application No. 520 of 1981 to recover the compensation of Rs. 50,000=00 for the bodily injury and consequential disability suffered by him. According to the claimant, on 30th July, 1980 he was serving as a cleaner and was attached to truck bearing registration No. GTB 6977. On that day, around 2:30 to 4:45 p. m. , the truck was travelling on Ahmedabad Bhavnagar highway. When it reached near village Changodara, one bus belonging to respondent no. 3 - GSRTC was proceeding ahead in the same direction. It is alleged by the claimant that the truck was driven by the driver of opponent no. 1 with excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner. As a result of such driving, the truck dashed against the rear side of the bus and due to the impact, the claimant sustained serious injuries including fracture of the femur bone. He was removed to the hospital for treatment. It is the say of the claimant that he had to undergo operation and thereafter the injured limb remained in plaster cast for long period. It was averred that in spite of the expensive and treatment of long duration, he could not be fully cured and he suffered permanent disability, which rendered him totally unfit for working as truck cleaner. According to him, on the date of the accident, his salary was Rs. 250=00 per month, over and above the different allowances received by him. On the basis of the same, he claimed Rs. 50,000=00.

( 3 ) THE application was resisted by the appellant namely the insurer of the truck by filing written statement at Exh. 7. It was denied that the claimant was working as cleaner of the offending truck. It was contended that he was gratuitous passenger travelling in the vehicle without the permission and knowledge of respondent no. 2 i. e. , the owner of the truck. According to the appellant since there was breach of condition of the policy, it was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. It was contended that the bus was proceeding ahead of the truck with excessive speed and all of a sudden the driver of the bus applied breaks without giving any signal for cautioning the vehicles following it. Because of such rash act, the collision took place. In other words, the appellant tried to throw blame on the driver of the S. T. Bus. In the alternative it was also averred that if the driver of the truck was held liable for causing accident, the liability of the appellant could be only to the extent it arose under the Workman s Compensation Act.

( 4 ) THE GSRTC filed written statement at Exh. 4. It is averred saying that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle on the correct side with moderate speed. However, a herd of buffaloes abruptly came in front of the bus and he suddenly applied the breaks. While he was about to re-start the bus, the truck dashed with it from behind. Thus, respondent no. 2 - GSRTC tried to throw blame on the driver of the truck.

( 5 ) THE parties led evidence in support of their cases. On the basis of the material produced before it, the Claims Tribunal decided the issue with regard to negligence and held the driver of the truck fully responsible for causing the accident. The Tribunal also assessed the compensation which the claimant deserved to receive and in the opinion of the Tribunal, the claimant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document