- (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order of the Motor Ac cidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut decreeing the claimant-respondents' claim to a sum of Rs. 25, 000/-.
(2.) ONE Lachman Singh was return ing on his cart on Baghpat Delhi road on 17-10-68. Truck No. UPS. 9031 came from behind and smashed the buffalo-cart with the result that Lachman Singh and the buffalo died on the spot and the cart was badly damaged. The truck belonged to Babu Singh under a hire- purchase agreement from Nice Financier and Engineering (Private) Ltd., Delhi and was insured with Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 40, 000/-. Jai Bhagwan was the driver of this truck. Sri Babu Singh was also travelling in the same truck. The truck was going from Saharanpur to Delhi. After notice to Sri Babu Singh the claimants opposite parties claimed compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act amounting to Rs. 27.000/-. The claim was contested by the Jupiter General Insurance Co. and Sri Babu Singh. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decreed the claim and gave its award by its order dated 9-2-71. Under the award the claim of the claimants was de creed to the extent of Rs. 20, 000/- against the Jupiter General Insurance Co. and the remaining amount of Rs. 5, 000/- was decreed against Sri Babu Singh. These two F. A. F. Os. have been filed against the aforesaid award of the Tribunal. F. A. F. O. No. 179 of 1971 is by Jupiter General In surance Co. and F. A. F. O. No. 118 of 1971 it by Babu Singh.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Jupiter General Insurance Co. has contended that:- (1) The claim was vague and was not properly verified. He has also stated that in the absence of a claimant coming in the witness box the claim could not be deemed to have been filed by the claimants. (2) Burden of proof of negligence lay on the claimant and no allegation of negli gence was made in the claim. (3) The award is bad without any issue on proof of negligence. (4) The driver and the financier i.e. Nice Finance Co. were necessary parties and the claim, therefore, is bad on that account. (5) The compensation award is exces sive and has not been accorded in accord ance with the principles of law. ;