Honble GARG, J.–Since in all these Special Appeals common questions of law and facts arise, they are being decided by this common judgment.

Facts of Special Appeals No. 1 and 2.

(2). The necessary facts giving rise to Special Appeals No. 1 and 2 being D.B. Civil Special Appeals No. 25/2000 and 24/2000 respectively are as follows:-

(3). On 9.3.1997, Harchand Ram and Kailash (hereinafter referred to as deceased No. 1 and deceased no. 2 respectively) alongwith other family members boarded in Truck No. RJ-19G-3811 after paying fare to the respondent No. 5 Puna Ram, driver of the said Truck for going to village Lohawat from village Sanvreej. The said Truck, on that day, was insured with the appellant-The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short `the Assurance Company) and respondent No. 5 Puna Ram was its driver and respondent No. 6 Govind Singh was its owner. When the Truck in question reached near the field of Shri Bagar Ram near village Khara, it turned down due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck by its driver i.e. respondent No. 5 Puna Ram, as a result of which, Harchand Ram and his son Kailash both sustained grievous injuries and later on both died. For that accident, FIR was also lodged at Police Station Phalodi and a challan was filed later on for the offence under sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC against respondent No. 5 Puna Ram for driving the Truck negligently.

(4). Deceased No. 2 Kailash was the son of deceased no. 1 Harchand Ram and thus, Legal heirs of both the deceased are common. The respondents no. 1 to 4 being legal heirs of both the deceased filed two separate claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi (Rajasthan) (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal) claiming compensation for death of both deceased and in both the claim petitions, the appellant Assurance Company was impleaded as non-petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 5 Puna Ram, driver of the Truck in question and respondent No. 6 Govind Singh, owner of the Truck in question were also impleaded as non- petitioners no. 1 and 2 respectively. From the record, it appears that respondent No. 5 Puna Ram and respondent No. 6 Govind Singh, driver and owner of the Truck in question respectively did not appear before the Tribunal after service on them and present appellant-Assurance Company was also served, but it did not file any reply nor any defence was adduced by the appellant-Assurance Company before the Tribunal.

(5). The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and material on record, decided both the claim petitions vide judgment and award dated 14.1.1998 and awarded compensation to the claimants in the following manner holding inter-alia appellant-Assurance Company, respondent No. 5 Puna Ram, driver of the Truck in question and respondent No. 6 Govind Singh, owner of the Truck in question liable jointly and severally for paying compensation to the claimants:-

MACT Claim No. 18/97 for claiming compensation for death of Kailash Rs. 75000/-

MACT Claim No. 17/97 for claiming compensation for death of Harchand Ram Rs. 367000/-

(6). Aggrieved from the said judgment and award dated 14.1.1998 passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-Assurance Company preferred two separate appeals before this Court and the same were registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 636/2000 and 340/98. In these appeals, it was pleaded by the Assurance Company that it was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants as there were breach of the terms of the policy and it has placed reliance on Section 149(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1988), as both deceased sat in the goods Truck by paying fare to its driver. Both the appeals of the Assurance Company were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 15.9.2000 placing reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company vs. Satpal Singh and Ors. (1) holding that the said judgment of the Honble Supreme Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document