Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The aforesaid 16 petitions have been filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajpura, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the orders dated 24.1.2004, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), dismissing its execution applications, which were filed on the strength of the order dated 7.5.2002 passed by this court in F.A.O. No. 422 of 2000 filed by the petitioner insurance company.
(2.) In these cases, an accident took place on 6.4.1994 between two buses bearing registration No. PAB 8655 owned by Gian Bus Service Ltd. and PB 12-2258 owned by Akal Bus Service. In the accident, some persons died at the spot and some were injured. In that appeal, 25 claim petitions were filed in the court of the Tribunal, the bus bearing registration No. PAB 8655 was insured with the petitioner insurance company and the bus bearing registration No. PB 12-2258 was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Both the insurance companies contested the petitions on the ground that the drivers of both the vehicles were not holding valid driving licences on the day of accident. An objection was also raised that both the vehicles were not having valid registration certificates and route permits. In that regard, the Tribunal framed the following two issues: (27) Whether the drivers of both the vehicles were not having valid driving licences? If not, its effect? OPR (28) Whether both the vehicles were not having valid registration certificates and route permits at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR
(3.) All the claim petitions were decided in favour of the claimants vide a common award dated 12.10.1999. On both the aforesaid issues, the following findings were recorded: Issue No. 27 (123) Onus was upon the respondents to prove this issue, but this issue was not pressed by the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments. This issue is accordingly, held against the respondents and in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 28 (124) Onus was upon the respondents to prove this issue also, but this issue was not pressed by the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments. This issue also stands adjudicated against the respondents and in favour of the claimants.;