- (1.)Against the judgment dated August 6, 1977 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (District Judge, Udaipur) (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Chunilal (Driver) have filed this appeal under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.). By the judgment aforesaid, the Tribunal rejected the application for compensation filed by the appellants ('the applicants' herein) being barred as no cause of action was shown in the application against the respondents, who were non-applicants.
(3.)The applicants filed the application for compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000/- before the Tribunal on June 23, 1975 alleging that on January 6, 1975. Bus No. RJY 2151 was going from Kelva to Diver via Aamet and it was being driven by the deceased Chunnilal. At about 12.00 in the night, the Bus fell into a pit and met with an accident. The applicants who are the heirs of Chunnilal have filed the application for compensation for the loss suffered by them due to the death of Chunnilal. Non-applicant No. 3, who is the owner of the Bus filed a reply contesting the claim solely on the ground that Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim of the applicants. Non-applicant No. 2 the National Insurance Company Ltd., Northern Regional Office (Jeevan-Vikas) (Third Floor), Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi contested the claim denying the liability to pay the compensation. The Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the Bus No. RJY going from Aamet to Diver fell into a pit on 6-1-1975 and met with an accident and thereby Chunnial Driver died? (2) Whether the applicants are entitled to get the compensation and if so, what amount and from whom? (3) Whether the death took place due to the negligence of the driver and if so, can applicants file the present claim? (4) Relief? Issue No. 3 was treated as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal by its judgment dated August 6, 1977 rejected the application holding that no cause of action arises against the non-applicants and, therefore, the application is not maintainable. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the applicants as aforesaid.