S.N.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) ALL these appeals arise out of an accident and involve common questions of law and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) ON 9.6.1987, Faizan Varis Farooqui, Asir Ali, Sajid, Nausad Ali, Vishnu Sharma and Natwar Lal were going from Ajmer to Jaipur in a taxi car No. RST 1018. The said taxi met with an accident at about 1 a.m. on 10.6.1987 at village Datari, near Dudu on Jaipur -Ajmer Road, National Highway No. 8, when truck No. DEL 3065 came from the opposite direction and hit the aforesaid car. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently while the car was going on its side and was not at fault. As a result of the accident, all the six persons named above as also the driver of the car sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot, except Vishnu Sharma who died after being brought to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Six claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives/dependants of the deceased persons before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. The claim petitions were contested. The petitions were consolidated and the Tribunal, after recording evidence of the parties, found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. DEL 3065 which was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and awarded damages in all the claim petitions. It is against this award of the Tribunal that the dependants of the deceased persons have filed six separate appeals which are S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 419 to 424 of 1991 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. along with the owner of the truck have filed joint appeal Nos. 414, 415, 416, 417, 418 and 425 of 1991 challenging the quantum of compensation and further praying that the claim petitions ought to have been dismissed and no liability should be imposed on the owner or the insurance company. Arguments have been heard. Learned counsel for the claimants has raised a preliminary objection that joint appeal by the owner of the truck along with the insurance company is not maintainable and has placed reliance on a decision of this court in Sushila v. Succlui Singh 1989 ACJ 226 (Rajasthan), wherein N.M. Kasliwal, J., as he then was, after discussing the case -law at length, has held that the owner of the vehicle is not an aggrieved person inasmuch as the liability to pay compensation has been fixed on the insurance company and the insurance company can challenge the award only on the grounds available under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He has agreed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in United India Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Gulab Chandra Gupta 1985 ACJ 245 (Allahabad), Kantilal and Bros. v. Ramarani Debi 1980 ACJ 501 (Calcutta) and also United India Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Lakshrni Shori Ganjoo 1982 ACJ 470 (J&K;) and has respectfully disagreed with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Vellayya Gounder v. N. Ramnathan 1982 ACJ 251 (Karnataka).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the claimants have submitted that this view has been taken again by this court in Bhawani Mal Mathur v. Bhagwati, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 186 of 1982; decided on 7.10.1986 and other unreported judgments.;