K.S. LODHA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed by claimants Smt. Shakuntala and Raghunath Rai, mother and father respectively of the deceased Kuldeep who had died in a motor accident against the United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short the Tribu-nal) dated 14,3.83, whereby, while awarding compensation to the appellants against the owner and driver of the vehicle, their claim has been rejected against the Insurance Company. They now claim that the award may be made against the Insurance Company also.

2. It is now not in dispute before me that Kuldeep son of the appellants, aged about 27 years, had died on account of a motor accident on March 31, 1979. The "motor vehicle, viz. three wheeler scooter, which belonged to Laxmi-narayan and which was being driven at the time of this accident by Champalal, had hit Kuldeep while he was going on the road towards Sojati Gate, Jodhpur on March 30, 1979 and that this accident was the result of rash driving of Champalal. Deceased Kuldeep was a Probationary Officer in the State Bank of India and was drawing Rs. 1460/- per month at the time when his life was, thus, cut short. The claimants being his mother and father respectively are entitled to compensation and after taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,60,650/- to the claimants against Laxmi Narayan and Champalal owner and driver respectively of the aforesaid vehicle. However, the claim has been rejected so far as the Insurance Company is concerned. The question which falls to be decided in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company should also be held liable or riot.

3. In order to appreciate the question posed above, a few facts may be stated here. In the claim petition filed by Smt. Shakuntala and Raghunath Rai, in para 9(a), Champalal was stated to be the driver of the vehicle: viz, the three-wheeler No. RSQ 8525 and in para 9(b), Laxmi Narayan was said to be the owner thereof. In para 9(c), United India Insurance Co., (the present respondent) was mentioned to be the insurer of the said vehicle. The policy number and the date of the insurance have been mentioned as No. 381911 dated 23.5. 78. In reply to para 9, the non-petitioner no. 1, the owner of Laxmi Narayan, in para 2 of the reply, merely mentioned that para no. 8 and 9 of the claim petition do not call for any reply. He thereby impliedly admitted the averments made in para 9 of the claim petition. Non-petitioner no. 2, viz. Champalal (the driver) clearly admitted that the facts mentioned in para 9(a) were admitted. The rest of the para was denied for want of knowledge The Insurance Company (non-petitioner no. 3) in its reply dated 7. 4. 80 in para 8 thereof, stated that so far as para 9 of the claim petition is concerned, Champa Lal was the driver of this vehicle and Laxminarayan was the owner thereof. It was further added that vehicle was not insured with non-petitioner no. 3. It will be relevant to note that the whole reply is typed one and the word ^ugha* has been added in hand between the words ^ikl chfer* and ^djk j[kk gS*- It further appears that this reply of non-petitioner no. 3 was interpreted to be a reply in which the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with non-petitioner no. 3 at the relevant time. i.e. at the time of this accident, had not specifically been denied and was, therefore, taken to be impliedly admitted and that is why when issues were framed on 22.10.80, no issue was framed in this respect. The parties led their evidence. Claimant Raghunath Rai was examined on 21.2.81 and his three other witnesses were also examined on the same day. Thereafter, it appears that, while the case was pending for the claimants evidence, an application was filed on behalf of non-petitioner no. 3 on 24.4.82 that non-petitioners no. 1 and 2 may be directed to produce the insurance policy and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document