J.N.BHATT - (1.). A group of these four appeals arose out of a common judgment and award. Therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)The appellants are the original opponents No. 1 and 2, respondents No. 2 in all these appeals are the original opponent No. 3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, they are hereinafter referred to as the original claimants and original opponents No. 1, 2 and 3. The claimants filed Motor Accident Claim Petitions No. 22, 23, 24 and 25 of 1975 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Narol (Tribunal for short, hereinafter) for personal injuries and damages to goods due to a vehicular accident. The accident in question occurred on 17-4-1977, atabout 7a.m. All the four claimants, who are agriculturist were travelling in the motor truck No. GTG 2311, alongwith their goods, on the day of the accident. The claimants had, jointly, hired the said motor truck for transporting Manglori roof tiles from Morbi to their village Vanhvali, in Taluka Mehmadabad, District Kheda. The said motor truck was, thus, loaded with Manglori roof tiles and it was proceeding on Ahmedabad - Bhavnagar State Highway. When the said truck reached near village Bagodara, at about 7 a.m. at that lime, the truck went, off the road and fell in a road-side ditch, after it was dragged for some distance, on account of bursting of tyre. With the result, the Manglori roof tiles loaded in the motor truck were broken and damaged. AH the claimants had sustained injuries on different parts of their body. It was alleged that the offending truck was driven by original opponent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. That the offending truck was drivcn by original opponent No. 1, it was owned by original opponent No. 2 and it was insured with original opponent No. 3, at the relevant time Therefore, each claimant claimed Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation for personal injuries and damages to the goods from the opponents. Eanier, the claim was for Rs. 9,000/- but later on it was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- by each claimant in he aforesaid four claim petitions.
(3.)The opponentsappeared and resisted the claim petitions. A compositc written statement was filed by original opponents No. 1 and 2. Separate written statment was filed by original opponent No. 3. It wis admitted that the accident occurred on accour. of bursting of tyre. However, inter alia, it was contended that there was no rashness or ne;ligcnce on the part of the opponent No. 1. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred an account of all of a sudden bursting of tyre which was because of latent manufacturing defect. Thus, the opponents contended that the acidcnt was inevitable and the manufacturing defect in the tyre was not detected. It was admitted that the original opponent No. 1 was the diver, original opponent No. 2 was the owner and orginal opponent No. 3 was the insurer of the of Ending truck at the relevant time.