Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) These two appeals have been submitted against the common award dated 4-9-1998 in Claim Case Nos. 6/1997 and 67/1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra after a consolidated trial of the two claim cases arising out of the same accident and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. A short question about 'Against judgment and Award of K.K. Aacharya, Judge, M.A.C.T., Balotra, D/4-9-1998. the liability of the insurer arises for consideration in these appeals filed by the insurer and hence brief background facts in relation thereto would suffice.
(2.) The claimants Sakaram and Ridmal, respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals filed their respective Claim Applications with the submissions that on 9-10-1995 at about 8-9 am in the morning, they were sitting at the shop of Marudhar Krishi Seva Kendra, at bus stand Padru when the bus driver Ganpatram brought driving a bus bearing registration No. RJY 9611 rashly and negligently and hit the claimants causing the accident which resulted in serious injuries to the claimants. While stating the liability of the driver of the bus Ganpatram and its owner Baksu Devi, it was also stated that the Appellant National Insurance Company was the insurer of the vehicle in question at the relevant time and all of them were jointly and severally liable for compensation. While stating different component of the claim for compensation, the claimant Sakaram in Claim Case No. 6/1997 claimed an amount of Rs. 1,14,500/- on treatment expenditure, attendant, pains and sufferings and so also 20% reduction in working capacity. The other claimant Ridmal in Claim Case No. 67/1997 claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation on treatment expenditure, attendant, pains and sufferings, loss of income and permanent disablement.
(3.) The owner of the bus and so also the driver, non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the claim cases were contested by the appellant, non-applicant No. 3 by filing similar replies to the claim applications wherein, inter alia, it was averred that the liability of the insurer has come an end for the reason that the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy conditions and one of the specific ground taken was that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. Other averments of the claimants relating to the quantification of compensation were also denied.;