S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) ON October 22, 1970 at about 6 p.m. there was an accident near village Bemni Khera on the Delhi -Mathura Road between a car CD 3634 which was coming from the side of Mathura and a tanker DIL 4687 going in the opposite direction. Three women travelling in this car were killed; while the fourth was seriously injured. Amongst those killed was Miss Savita Sondhi.
(2.) MRS . Sushila Sondhi mother and Madhu and Deepa Sondhi, sisters of the deceased sought Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 25,000/ - was awarded as compensation to the claimants. It may be mentioned here that the finding of the Tribunal was that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker, but the claimants were awarded compensation following the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Marine and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan : 1976 ACJ 288 (Bombay), where it was held that every person injured by the use of a motor vehicle must be awarded such compensation as appeals to the Tribunal to be just whether or not the Respondent was at fault or negligent. This view was overruled by the Supreme Court in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan : 1977 ACJ 118 (SC), where it was observed that the concept of liability without negligence was wholly opposed to the basic principles of law.
(3.) THIS order will dispose of three appeals arising from the impugned award of the Tribunal. One being by Gopi Nath, the owner of the tanker, involved in the accident, questioning his liability for payment of compensation in this case in view of the finding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker. The other being by the Respondent insurance company seeking to avoid liability, firstly, on the ground that the owner of the tanker was not liable for payment of any compensation and then that at any rate the insurance policy had been rendered void by the non -disclosure and misrepresentation of material facts. This plea being founded upon the fact that in the proposal form the vehicle was described as a truck; whereas it was, in fact, a tanker. The claimants in turn sought enhanced compensation in the appeal filed by them.;