O. P. Saxena, J. - (1.) THESE are four connected FAFOs against the order dated 8-5-80 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Allahabad.
(2.) THE petition related to an accident in which Sri Santosh Behari Mittal, Advocate, received serious injuries and succumbed to the same. THE accident took place on the 6th of July 1975 at about 9 a. m. on the crossing of Sarojini Naidu Marg and Mahatma Gandhi Marg which is in the form of a circle around the Church in the centre. THE place of the accident was on the southwestern sector of the circle near the turning of Mahatma Gandhi Marg. THE deceased was on his way home from the Allahabad Junction Railway Station. He was going on a rickshaw. Ambassador car UPF 6720 dashed against the rickshaw from the rear side. THE rickshaw was on the left side of the road and the car was driven rashly and negligently. No horn was blown. As a result of the accident the rickshaw was smashed and the deceased received severe injuries. THE car was being driven by opposite party No. 3 R. K. Ahuja at a very high speed and he could not bring it to a stop for a considerable distance. Claimant No. 1 is the widow. Claimants 2 and 3 are the minor sons of the deceased. It was said that the deceased was earning not less than Rs. 1,000/- per mensem as a practising lawyer of the Allahabad High Court. THE car was registered and insured in the name of opposite party No. 1 Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Varanasi. THE car was in actual use of opposite party No. 4 B. S. Ahuja who was employed as Assistant Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Gyanpur Branch. A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. Opposite party No. 1 contested the petition with the allegations that it had no knowledge of the accident, that opposite party No. 4 Sri B. S. Ahuja was for all practical purposes the owner of the car, that there was a Hire Purchase Agreement between the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 4, in accordance with which the opposite party No. 1 advanced the money for the purchase of the car to opposite party No. 4 who was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, that under section 2 (19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, opposite party No. 4 was the owner and was responsible, that the compensation claimed is highly excessive, that the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of the vehicle for third party risk and that the opposite party No. 1 is not liable for any damages. Opposite party No. 2 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the petition with the allegations that it had no knowledge of the accident, that the car was in the possession of opposite party No. 4 B. S. Ahuja subject to a Hire Purchase Agreement, that opposite party No. 3 R. K. Ahuja had no driving licence, that the opposite party No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation under the Insurance Policy, that the death was not caused due to rash and negligence driving of the car and that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.
(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 3 R. K. Ahuja contested the petition on a plea of denial. His case was that he was not driving the vehicle and no accident was caused by him. Opposite party No. 4 B. S. Ahuja also contested the petition on a plea of denial. It was said that no accident was caused by UPF 6720.;