The person in possession and control of a motor vehicle is deemed to be the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

R.D. Shukla, J.

1. This order shall dispose of M.A. No. 335 of 1989 (Leelawati v. Ravindra Kumar) and M.A. No. 63 of 1990 (M.D., Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. v. Leelawati) as also the cross-objections filed in both the cases.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.9.1989 of IV Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 135 of 1987, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 24.1.1984 till realisation of the same with a further direction that all the three respondents (non-applicants) are jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation. The claimants-appellants have filed M.A. No. 335 of 1989 for enhancement of the amount.

Respondent Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'D.D.C. Ltd.') has filed M.A. No. 63 of 1990 challenging the liability of payment on the ground that the vehicle was in possession of owner and the officer of the Corporation, who died in accident, was only in occupation of the same.

The non-applicant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed cross-objections in both the appeals, disowning the liability of payment on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy.

3. This is not in dispute that Dr. Mangilal Yadav was working with the D.D.C. Ltd. as veterinary doctor in the capacity of Senior Veterinary Surgeon. Motor jeep No. MBF 522 was driven by Ravindra Kumar Sharma, who was the owner of the vehicle also. Dr. Mangilal (deceased) was being taken on the jeep on the basis of an agreement whereby the motor jeep was working for the D.D.C. Ltd. The vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3. The claimants are widow and children respectively of deceased Dr. Mangilal.

4. Claimants' case, in brief, is that Dr. Mangilal was going in a motor jeep driven by Ravindra Kumar. The same was driven rashly and negligently and was proceeding to veterinary sub-centre Chapda. Because of rash driving of the vehicle it overturned and resulted in grievous injuries to Dr. Mangilal, who was admitted to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, but died due to injuries. Non-applicant respondent No. 1 was the owner and driver of the vehicle, which was taken on contract by respondent No. 2. The claimants sought compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on different headings.

5. The non-applicant No. 1 denied the fact of rash and negligent driving and ascertained that it had rained and the vehicle skidded and overturned. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was in possession of D.D.C. Ltd., N.A. No. 2 and he was driving the vehicle under orders of the officers of Corporation. It has also been pleaded that the Corporation has utilised the service of the vehicle and was not in possession of the vehicle and, therefore, the Corporation is not liable to make payment of compensation. The quantum of compensation was also disputed.

6. Respondent No. 3, inter alia, pleaded that there was a breach of condition. The vehicle was used for hire and was in possession of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the respondent insurance company is not liable to make good the loss occasioned due to accident of the vehicle.

7. The learned Tribunal, after framing the issues answered them in favour of the claimants and held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-, as stated above with a direction that all the three non-applicants are jointly and severally responsible for making payment. Hence, these two appeals and cross-objections, as referred to above.

8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the dependency and has not taken into consideration the future prospects of increase in pay and promotion of the deceased.

9. Learned counsel for D.D.C. Ltd., respondent No. 2 (appellant in