K.B. Panda, J. - (1.)MISCELLANEOUS Appeals 160 to 163 of 1973 are under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They arise out of an accident that occurred on 7.8.1971 at about 10.15 a.m. In M.A. 161 of 1973, the father, in 163/73, his wife, in 160/73 his son and in 162/73, the daughter are the Appellants. They were all heard analogously in the lower court as well as in this Court. This common judgment will dispose of them all.
(2.)THE facts in brief are thus: The Appellant in M.A. 161/73 Mr. Arjuna Mohapatra is a practising Advocate of Berhampur Bar. He is also a Law Lecturer in the local Law College. He contacted opposite party No. 1 who is the owner of an Ambassador car bearing registration No. ORP 2710 for going on a pleasure trip with his family to Odagaon and other places. For that he paid Rs. 50/ - to opposite party No. 1 as advance. There are two other opposite parties, namely, O.P. No. 2 who is said to be an agent of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3 is the insurance company with which the vehicle had been insured.
The party left for Odagaon and other places on 7.8.1971. The vehicle was being driven by the retained driver of opposite party No. 1. At some place nearing Nayagarh it is alleged by the Petitioner -Appellants that the driver dozed in consequence of which the vehicle dashed against a tree and the four occupants received major injuries. They were hospitalised at Bhubaneswar and underwent treatment for various periods. Finally four claim cases were filed. The father claimed Rs. 10,000/ - on various counts but the learned Tribunal computed it at Rs. 5,890/ -. For the wife, a claim of Rs. 5,000/ -. had been laid and the Tribunal computed it at Rs. 3,000/ -; for the son the claim was Rs. 2.000/ - and the Tribunal reduced it to Rs. 1,000/ -, and for the daughter Miss. Bharati Mohapatra the claim was Rs. 2,000/ - which the Tribunal brought down to Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.)THE plea of opposite party No. 1, the owner of the vehicle was that he had not lent his car on hire to the Petitioner -advocate. His specific case was that as his driver wanted to take his family to Odagaon he had permitted him to do so; He was not aware that the driver had taken the Petitioners in the vehicle and as such he is not liable Opposite party No. 2, though filed a written statement, did not appear and so was set exparte. In short, his written statement was that he was not in any way connected with the transaction. Opposite party No. 3 pleaded that this was a private car not meant to be used as a taxi on hire. Since it had been unauthorisedly lent for a purpose for which it had no insurance, the company was not liable.