- (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dt. 21.4.2000 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T.(First), Jodhpur in MAC. Case No. 43/95 (874/95) whereby the claim application filed by the respondent Phusaram on account of the injuries received by him and the damage caused to his tractor No. RSN-3628 in a road accident which occurred on 8.5.1993 was partly allowed and he was granted total compensation of Rs. 42,000/-. The appellant Insurance Company has approached this Court assailing the award.
(2.) The facts in brief as set out in the claim application are that the claimant Phusaram was proceeding on his tractor on the Jodhpur-Barmer road on 8.5.1993. It is alleged that when the tractor reached the Pal Balaji temple village Pal, a Bus No. RJ-19P-333 owned by Jaswant Singh, non-claimant No. 2 and insured with the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver Budha Rem rammed into the tractor from the back side. It was alleged that the tractor was split into two as a result of collision. Phusa Ram received numerous injuries in the accident.
(3.) He filed a claim application u/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him and for the loss of estate caused by damage to the tractor. The non-claimants No. 1 and 2 i.e. Driver and the bus owner chose not to contest the claim. The appellant-insurance Company filed a reply pleading that at the time of accident, the bus driver was not having a valid licence to drive the bus and thus the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal framed following issues for consideration:-- "1. As to whether the non-claimant No. 1 the driver of the bus No. RH-19P-333 drove the bus rashly and negligently near the Pal Balaji Temple and thereby caused the accident: causing injuries to the claimant and damage to his tractor. 2. As to whether the driver was driving the bus in the employment and for the benefit of the owner non-claimant No. 2. 3. As to whether the insurance Company was entitled to be exonerated in the light of the objection taken by it that the bus driver was not having a valid licence to drive the same. 4. As to whether the claimant was entitled to receive the compensation as per the claim application or any other amount, and if yes, the quantum thereof and the person responsible to satisfy the claim?";