S.C.CHAURASIA,J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 01-11-1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Barabanki in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 208 of 1994, Munne Ansar @ Muneer Ansar @ Munne Pahelwan and others Versus Mohd. Saddiq and others, whereby, he awarded a sum of Rs. 1,87,000/- alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till final payment, as compensation and directed the opposite party no. 1 to pay the said amount.
(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that the claimants, Munne Ansar @ Muneer Ansar @ Munne Pahelwan and others, filed the claim petition with the allegations that Mainuddin @ Mohayaddin, son of Munne Ansar sustained injuries on 17-10-1994 at about 12.30 p.m. on Ramnagar Barabanki road near Choudhary Petrol Pump, police Station-Masauli, district-Barabanki, as a result of the accident caused by bus no. URU-4768, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Moharram Ali, S/o Hafiz Nazeer, when he was checking the fuel of his tempo(Vikram). Mainuddin @ Mohayaddin succumbed to his injuries, later on. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged and the case was registered against the driver of the bus in question. The deceased was the driver of Tempo and his age was about 30 years and his monthly income was Rs. 1500/- The opposite party no. 1, Mohd. Saddiq was the owner of the bus in question. It was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd., opposite party no. 3. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased and have claimed a sum of Rs. 3,61,000/- as compenstaion. The opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 have filed Written Statement and have admitted that opposite party no. 1 was the owner of bus No. URU-4768 and it was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd.,but, they have denied other allegations made in the claim petition. Their version is that the said bus was not involved in the accident and it was not being driven by Moharram Ali at the time of alleged accident. On the day of alleged accident, Sri Rafiq son of Habib, resident of Rasoolpur, police station-Kotwali, district-Barabanki, was driver of bus no. URU-4768 and he was holding a valid driving licence. The opposite party no. 2 was also holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. If it is found that the said accident was caused by the said bus and the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 are liable for the said accident, even then the opposite party no. 3 is liable to pay the amount of compensation. The claimants are not entitled to get any compensation from them. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. The claim petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
(3.) THE opposite party no. 3 filed the Written Statement separately and has admitted that Mohd. Saddiq was the owner of bus No. URU-4768 and it was insured with it for the period 25-11-1993 to 24-11-1994, but, has denied the other allegations made in the claim petition. Its version is that it appears that the driver of tempo (deceased) was driving the tempo very rashly and negligently with a high speed in the middle of the road and the alleged accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. The tempo number and name of owner and details of insurance company have not been disclosed in the claim petition. The owner of bus No. URU-4768 has filed photostat copy of the driving licence of Irfan, who was not authorised to drive the heavy vehicles as reported by the R.T.O., Faizabad. Moreover, the driving licence was not effective at the time of accident. It was issued for the period of 06-05-1988 to 05-05-1991, and the driving licence was neither issued nor renewed in the name of Moharram Ali. That from the report of Licencing Authority, it is clear that Moharram Ali was driving the vehicle in question without any valid and effective driving licence against the special terms and conditions of the insurnace policy as well as the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. In fact, Moharram Ali and Irfan are different persons and owner of the bus has misrepresented the facts regarding driver of the bus.;