K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) IN a collision on the 5 -2 -1969 at about 9.30 P.M. between a Jeep UPM 1326 and a petrol tanker USK 822, Harish Chandra Tewari, who was going in the former, was killed. Harish Chandra Tewari was going in the aforesaid jeep from Mohatla Rajpura in the town of Haldwani to his house in Baura Estate, Civil Lines, Haldwani.
(2.) THE dependants of the deceased Harish Chandra Tewari lodged before the Claims Tribunal a claim under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for Rs. 50,000/ against Raghunath Sahai Chatroth, the owner of the petrol tanker, Respondent No. 1, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Bombay, the insurer of the petrol tanker, Respondent No. 2, and also against the Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd. Mirzapur, the owner of the Jeep, Respondent No. 3 and Ruby General insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Jeep, Respondent No 4. The case of the claimants was that at about 9.30 P.M. on the 5th February, 1969, the deceased Harish Chandra Tewari was going with 5 -6 others in Jeep No UPM 1326 to his house. They were returning from Mohalla Rajpura and as the jeep took a turn at Tikoniya crossing and proceeded towards Kathgodam along the main road, the aforesaid petrol tanker, USK 822, belonging to Respondent No 1, came from Kathgodam side at a very high speed. Its driver Motilal could not control the tanker and dashed against the jeep as a result of which Harish Chandra Tewari was thrown out on the street and was crushed by the petrol tanker. Harish Chandra Tewari succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The claimants asserted that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 400/ - per month and, therefore, they were entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 50,000/ from the owners of the petrol tanker, the jeep and the insurance companies with which these vehicles were insured. According to the claimants, the accident in which the death of Harish Chandra Tewari took place was the result of recklessness and negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles, referred to above.
(3.) THE application made by the claimants under Section 110 -A of the Act was contested by the four Respondents. Each one of these Respondents filed a separate written statement. According to the written statement of the Respondent No. 1, the accident did not take place due to any fault of the driver of the tanker and hence, he was not liable to pay compensation. He also alleged that, in fact, the driver and the other occupants of the jeep were all drunk and this led to the accident. In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, the averment made was that the vehicle USZ 822 was insured with it under a policy with liability to third party only and the same was limited to Rs. 20,000/ for all claims. The plea that the claim was time barred and was liable to be dismissed summarily was also taken by it. The written statement of Respondent No. 3 was that the aforesaid jeep car was not with or under the control of the said Respondent at the time when the accident took place as the same had been taken from the answering Respondent by the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee for its use. it also asserted that the jeep car was at the time of the alleged accident moving in normal speed towards Bhutiya Padaw in Haldwani when the petrol tanker came rushing towards the jeep car at a high speed and dashed against it with the result that Harish Chandra Tewari fell down from the jeep and was run over by the tanker. It also pleaded that the jeep car was not responsible for the accident. In the alternative, the plea taken was that there was no cause of action against the said Respondent. Hence, no liability could be fastened on it. Ruby General Insurance Company, which was the insurer of the jeep car in question also refuted the claim on various grounds, including that the terms of the policy did not cover the liability of the claim made in the instant case.;