D.A. Desai, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred by original Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 in claim petition No. 45 of 1972 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surat wherein an award was made in favour of the claimants in the amount of Rs. 25,000/ - plus costs and interest at 6% as and by way of compensation for the loss suffered by the claimants on account of the death of Vanmalibhai Mohanbhai who died in an accident that occurred on June 1,1971 at about 12 -00 noon on Bardoli -Surat State Highway. It is alleged that this Vanmalibhai was proceeding from Kadodra to Surat on his motor -cycle bearing No. GJB 7875 and when he was about to reach Laxmi Auto Garage near Octroi Naka of the Surat Municipal Corporation, a tractor was seen coming from the opposite direction. It was being driven by Respondent No. 2 who was employed by Respondent No. 1 for driving the tractor bearing No. GJL 8252 to which a trailer bearing No. GYC 7251 was attached. It is alleged that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently in the middle of the road. It swerved suddenly with the result that the trailer body protruded out and knocked down the rider of the motor cycle and the tractor proceeded ahead and was stopped at some distance. Deceased Vanmalibhai was thrown off the motorcycle and he became unconscious. He was removed to the Civil Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the evening of the same day around 7.30 p.m. The claimants say that the deceased was 34 years at the time of his death and was in good health and he was doing the business of manufacturing and selling bricks. The claimants after ascertaining that they are entitled to compensation in a large amount, restricted it to Rs. 25,000/ -.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, the owner of the trailer and the tractor, contested the petition as per his written statement, ex. 19 inter alia contending that Respondent No. 2 was driving the tractor at the material time but it was denied that he was doing it in a rash and negligent manner. It was contended that the tractor was insured with original Respondent No. 3, and the trailer was insured with original Respondent No. 4. He denied that the deceased was doing the business of manufacturing and selling bricks or that his income was Rs. 12,000/ - per annum and denied any liability to pay any compensation. Original Respondent No. 2, the driver of the tractor and the trailer, filed his written statement at exh. 20 in almost identical terms with the one filed by original Respondent No. 1.
(3.) ORIGINAL Respondent No. 3, the Hindustan Ideal Insurance Company Limited, filed its written statement at ex. 31 inter alia contending that the petition is not maintainable against it and adopted various contentions raised by original Respondent No. 1.;