R.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE appellant has challenged the award dated 26.4.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,86,000 to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the death of their son, Samunder Singh @ Samdarshi.
(2.) ACCORDING to the claimants, on 12.5.2003 their twenty years old son was travelling in a jeep along with some of his friends in order to attend a marriage in village Macharia. It was alleged that, the said jeep was driven by respondent No. 4 Mangal Singh. It was further claimed that after the jeep passed the Jatoli Mod on the Rajakhera road, suddenly, the jeep driver accelerated the jeep. Despite the request of the passengers to slow down the jeep, he did not pay any heed to their suggestion. Consequently, the jeep collided with a Tata -407, as a result of which two boys namely, Samunder Singh @ Samdarshi and Neeru expired on the spot. Since, the Tata -407 was untraceable, therefore, the claimants filed the claim only against the Insurance Company, the owner and the driver of the jeep. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, respondent No. 1, it denied the averments of the claimants. The company claimed that since the driver did not have a valid driver's licence, therefore, the conditions of the insurance policy were violated. Moreover, they claimed that neither the driver nor the owner of the jeep had informed the Insurance Company about the said accident. Furthermore, according to the company, it was an act of God. Therefore, it was not possible for the driver to avoid the said accident. The company further claimed that the accident involved both the jeep and the Tata -407. Thus, the principle of contributory negligence should be kept in mind while apportioning the liability. Lastly, it claimed that neither the owner nor the driver of the Tata -407 has been made a party in the claim petition. Hence, the said claim petition suffers from nonjoinder and mis -joinder of necessary parties. Thus, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) ON the other hand, the owner and the driver have claimed in the written statement that the fault was not of the driver of the jeep. But, in fact, the fault lay entirely with the driver of the Tata -407. They further contended that the driver of the jeep did not violate any of the conditions of the insurance policy. They also claimed that since the jeep was used by private persons, who were being carried for attending a wedding and since they were not charged any amount, therefore, they would not be within the definition of word 'gratuitous passengers'. Hence, the driver and the owner of the jeep denied their liability for the payment of the compensation.;