S.B.MAJMUDAR - (1.) These two first appeals are filed by the insurance company which has insured the offending motor truck which caused fatal injuries to two labourers on account of a vehicular accident. The claimants in the respective claim petitions before the Tribunal had claimed different amounts. The Insurance Company was made liable to satisfy the conce- rned awarded claims of the respective claimants in the both claim peti- tions. That has prompted the insurance company to prefer these appeals under sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 1 Factual background:-.
(2.) In order to appreciate the questions in controversy that have been posed for decision of this court in the present appeals it is necessary to have a look at the factual background resulting in the present pro- ceedings. On 9-4-1974 motor truck in question was driven by its driver opponent No. 1 in both the claim petitions. The said truck belonged to original opponent No. 2 Bhavani Transport Company and it was insured by the appellant insurance company in both these appeals which was joined as opponent No. 3 in both the claim petitions. The case of the claimants is that by about 12-30 noon on 9-4-1974 the truck in question therefore being No. GTD 2110 was coming from Sevalia being loaded with stones. Certain labourers including two deceased were travelling by the said truck. The truck was proceeding towards Dakor side on the State highway between Sevalia and Nadiad in Kaira district. When the truck reached Pansora bus stand because of the excessive speed with which the truck was being driven by its driver one type of the truck burst. The driver lost control over the steering with the result that the truck left the road broke down the parapet wall of a culvert and fell by the side of the road in a ditch having turned turtle. The conductor as well as other labourers who were travelling in the truck were crushed under the stones and died on the spot. The aforesaid accident resulted into two claim petitions under sec. 110A of the Act before the M.A.C. Tribunal at Nadiad. In Claim petition No. 45 of 1975 the widow of the deceased labourer Vanabhai Lallubhai put forward a claim of Rs. 15 2 by way of damages against the driver of the truck the owner of the truck as well as the insurance company being opponents No. 1 2 and 3 respectively. The widow and minor children of another labourer who also lost his life in the accident viz. Maganbhai filed companion petition No. 46 of 1975 against the same set of opponents claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 30 0 ... ... ... ... ...
(3.) The Tribunal as per purshis of parties at Ex. 28 in claim petition No. 45 of 1975 consolidated both the claim petitions and recorded common evidence in claim petition No. 45 of 1975. The Tribunal on the evidence recorded came to the conclusion that both the deceased died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by its driver opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 2 Bhavani Transport Company the owner of the truck was held victoriously liable for the tortuous act committed by its driver. On the question regarding assessment of proper damages the Tribunal held that the widow of deceased Vanabhai the sole claimant in claim petition No. 45 of 1975 was entitled to Bet compensation to the tune of Rs. 12 0 while the widow and minor children of deceased Maganbhai in companion petition No. 46 of 1975 were entitled to a total amount of Rs. 17 0 which was apportioned amongst different claimants in fixed proportions. So far as liability of the concerned opponents to satisfy the awarded claims was concerned the Tribunal took the view that all the original opponents viz. the driver of the truck the owner of the truck and the insurance company were liable to satisfy the full award of claims of both the petitions. Repelling the contention raised on behalf of the insurance company which sought to confine its liability to the Act liability under the Workmens Compen- sation Act the Tribunal held that both the deceased were traveling in the truck in question not under employment of the owner of the truck viz. opponent No. 2 but they were being paid their wages by persons who used to consign goods by truck belonging to opponent No. 2 and hence they cannot be considered to be employees of opponent No. 2 and consequently the insurance companys liability was not restri- cted to Act ability under the Workmens Compensation Act. As noted above the aforesaid common awards of the Tribunal in both the claim petitions have resulted in the present two appeals at the instance of opponent No. 3 insurance company. In each of these appeals original claimants have filed cross-objections seeking chanced compensation against the insurance company viz. the present appellant in both these appeals as well as other concerned correspondents. ... ... ... ... ... V. Maintainability of Cross Objections:;