Ramanujam, J. - (1.)These two appeals arise out of two claim petition filed under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the window of one, Dharmaraj and the widow and children of one Thirumal, both of whom died in a motor vehicle accident.
(2.)On 22-8-1972, at about 12.50 p. m. the said Dharmaraj and Thirumal were going on a motor cycle MSQ 6512; Dharmaraj riding it and Thirumal sitting on the pillion. When they were going in the Kodambakkam bridge in Arcot Road the motor car MSR 5018, which was coning in the opposite direction, suddenly dashed on the motor cycle as a result of which the right leg of Dharmaraj was cut off below the knee, and thrown to a distance of 12 feet and both the legs of the pillion rider, Thirumal, were fractured. Both the injured were taken to the Government Royapettah hospital, but in the evening of the same day both of them succumbed to the injuries. On the ground that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor car MSR 5018 by its driver, the widow of Dharmaraj filed O. P. No. 772 of 1972, claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000, while the legal representatives of Thirumal filed O. P. No. 785 of 1972 claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, Both the claim petitions had been filed against the respondents 1 and 2 who are respectively the owner of the car and the Insurance company with which the car had been insured.
(3.)First respondent the original owner of the car died even before the summons were served and his widow, third respondent, was brought on record as his legal representative. The second respondent, the insurer of the car, contended that the owner of the car to whom an insurance policy had been issued died on 10-7-1972 that the third respondent his widow had Fold the said car on 14-8-1972,to one Niranjan Roy, that on such: transfer of the ownership of the car, the policy issued in the name of the first respondent had lapsed even before 22-8-1972, the date of the accident and that, therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation. The third respondent in both the competitions, who came on record as the legal representative of the first respondent contended that she sold the said car to Niranjan Roy for a valuable consideration on 14-8-1972, that she had informed about the transfer of ownership of the car to the Insurance company on the same day, that the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not her employee and that, therefore. She is not vicariously liable to pay any compensation. On taking note of the defence taken by the third respondent, the purchaser Niranjan Roy had been impleaded as the fourth respondent. He contended that there was no transfer of ownership of the said car to him and that therefore he was not liable to pay any compensation. He also contended that the said car had been left for repairs with Messrs Eswar Automobiles on 14-8-1972, that the accident having occurred while the car was driven by the driver employed by the said automobiles the partners of the said automobiles are to be added as parties as they are liable to pay compensation. He also pleaded that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the motor cycle driver and that, therefore, no compensation is payable by him in respect of the said accident, and that in any event, the compensation claimed in both the claim petitions is excessive.