JUDGMENT :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 40/2014

1. The matter comes up on an application for restoration of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 721/2012 which was dismissed vide Order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in compliance of the peremptory Order dated 24.08.2012 passed by this Court.

2. The restoration application is reported to be time barred by 272 days.

3. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

4. No reply to the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application as well as restoration application has been filed by the respondents.

5. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay of 272 days in filing the restoration application is condoned.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the restoration application.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the bona fide error, the appellant could not file the requisites and therefore, in view of the peremptory order, the appeal was dismissed.

8. For the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, the same is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 722/2012, 2021/2015 & 721/2012

9. With the consent of the parties, the appeals are heard on merits today itself.

10. The above mentioned three appeals arise out of the same accident as well as common award passed by the Tribunal on 19.12.2011, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

11. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2021/2015 has been preferred by the legal representatives of Asha Ram (During the pendency of the present appeal Asha Ram has died). For enhancement of the amount awarded in their favour vide judgment and award dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh, District Churu in Civil Misc. Case No. 25/8 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 54,417/- in favour of the injured Asha Ram. Whereas, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 722/2012 & 721/2012 have been preferred by the National Insurance Company challenging the Judgment & Award dated 19.12.2011.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has only limited his arguments to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 4. Learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 4 are perverse and incorrect. Learned counsel further contended that since the driver of the Bus was not holding a proper driving license to drive the transport heavy vehicle, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation in the accident which took place on 29.11.2005. He further submits that the Tribunal committed an error while recording the findings that the driver of the Bus, namely, Ram Prasad was having all the requisite qualifications/eligibility for driving the Bus is on the face of it, incorrect. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability of paying the compensation to the claimants-respondents in this case.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that there is no error on the findings of Issue No. 4 as the Tribunal has dealt with the issue of validity of the license of Ram Prasad in detail, and has conclusively held that the driver of the bus, Ram Prasad, was holding the requisite driving license to drive the bus and, therefore, the Insurance Company was under an obligation to pay the compensation. He, therefore, submits that the findings on Issue No. 4 are not required to be interfered with by this Court.

15. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents in the appeal filed for enhancement has also prayed that since the injured Asha Ram suffered two fractures in the present accident and one simple injury, for which he was admitted in the Hospital fr