A.S.BAINS,J. - (1.) THESE four appeals, i. e. , F. A. O. Nos. 264 and 265 of 1974 (filed by Sewa Singh truck-owner) and F. A. O. Nos. 81 and 107 of 1975 (filed by claimants Col. Gurcharan Singh and Dr. Harinder Kaur, respectively) shall be disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of the same accident and are directed against the judgment dated November 30, 1973, rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to these appeals are as under I On August 23, 1970, Col. Gurcharan Singh and his daughter, Dr. Harinder Kaur, were coining to Chandigarh from Delhi in car No. WBT 9182 arid when they reached near the Army petrol Depot on G. T. Road, Ambala, they met with an accident with a truck bearing No. DLL 6907, which was coming from the opposite direction at a very high speed without blowing any horn or giving any signal. As a result of the accident Col. Gurcharan Singh and his daughter were injured. They were admitted in the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt. , and the matter was reported to the police at Police Station, Ambala Cantt. , on August 25, 1970. The accident took place at about 10-30 P. M. on August 23, 1970. Col. Gurcharan Singh and his daughter filed claim applications before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). Col. Gurcharan Singh claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000 while Dr. Harinder Kaur claimed a compensation of Rs. 30,000. It was alleged in the applications that at the time of the accident the car was being driven by Col. Gurcharan Singh and his daughter was sitting by his side in the front seat and that the speed of the car was about 50 kilometres per hour and it was on the correct side whereas the truck was running at a high speed and was not blowing any horn or giving any signal. It was further alleged in the claim applications that due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck the accident took place. These allegations were controverted by the insurance company and also by the owner of the truck, Sewa Singh, and the parties contested on the following issues : " 1. Whether the petitioner suffered the alleged injuries as a result of the accident from truck No. DLL 6907 due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck by respondent No. 1 Santokh Singh ? 2. To what amount, if any, is the petitioner entitled as compensations and from whom ? 3. Whether the petitioner has got a cause of action as against the Vulcan Insurance Company and is entitled to claim compensation from the same ? 4. Whether the truck DLL 6907 has been sold before the alleged accident? If so, to what effect? 5. What is the effect of not impleading Gurmukh Singh as a party to the present petition ? 6. Whether the truck in question was being driven by a person without licence who was not an employee of the insured at the time of the alleged accident. If so, to what effect ? 7. Relief. "
(3.) THE learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. DLL 6907 and the claimants suffered the alleged injuries as a result of that accident. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants and it was held that they were entitled to the compensation. In the case of Dr. Harinder Kaur it was held that she was entitled to a compensation ol Rs. 2,500 and in the case of Col. Gurcharan Singh it was held that he was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 20,000. issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the insurance company and it was held that there was no cause of action against the insurance-company. On issue No. 4 it was decided that the truck was sold before the alleged accident by Gurmukh Singh to Sewa Singh. On issue No. 5 it was held that since Gurmuk Singh was not impleaded as a party to the claim applications, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Issue No. 6 was not seriously challenged by the parties and hence there was no finding. On the basis of the findings on issues 1 to 5, the Tribunal allowed compensation, as stated above, in favour of the claimants and Sewa Singh, owner of the truck, was held liable to pay the same. It is against this judgment of the Tribunal that the claimants as well as Sewa Singh, owner of the truck, have filed separate appeals.;