S.S.BYAS, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the Act' here in after) has been preferred against an award of the Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated December 7, 1981, by which the appellants (driver and owner of the bus) were directed to pay sum of Rs. 75,000/ - as compensation to the claimants.
(2.) THE claimants are the parents, widow and minor daughters of the deceased -victim Sultansingh. They presented an application under Section 110 -A of the Act against the appellants and the insurer, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ - as compensation. The averments disclosed in the application are that at about 10.30 A.M. on January 25, 1978, Sultan Singh was going on a bicycle from Paota square to Sojati Gate. He was on the extreme left edge of the road. While he was proceeding on the bicycle, mini -bus No. RSQ 8851 came from behind, Appellant Arjun singh was driving it at that time. He was driving it so rashly and negligently that it knocked down Sultansingh. The bus even then did not stop. It rolled over Sultansingh and crushed him completely. As a result, Sultan singh sustained multiple severe injuries on his person. He did not survive and passed away instantaneously on the spot. The appellant Bahadursingh is the owner of the bus. Sultansingh was employed as Electrician Grade -II in the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation. His monthly emoluments were Rs. 352/ - in total. He was a youngman of the age of 31 years with perfect health and sound physique. In the normal course, he was to be superannuated on his attaining the age of fifty -five years. He was the only bread - -winner of the family and was contributing approximately a sum of Rs. 250/ - per month to the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/ -as the loss of dependency benefit at twenty five years' purchase and a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - for mental anguish and suffering. It was alleged that the accident had taken place and Sultansingh died on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The claim application was resisted by the owner, driver and the insurer through different written statements. The defence taken by the owner and the driver are identical. They admitted that the driver Arjunsingh was driving the bus at the time of the accident, but denied all other averments. According to them, Sultansingh was going ahead of the bus on a bicycle. He was on a the right side of the bus. All of a sudden, he took a turn towards his left. The driver was driving the bus slowly. The accident had taken place because of the sudden turn taken by Sultansingh from right to left. The quantum of compensation was challenged. The insurer raised the defence that on the day of the accident, the driver was holding a licence only to drive the light motor vehicle. The bus in question, which caused the accident, was heavy passenger bus, for which the driver had no valid driving licence. One of the stipulations in the Insurance Policy is that the driver driving the bus must hold a valid licence to drive the motor vehicle. Since Arjunsingh had no valid licence to drive heavy transport vehicle, the insurer cannot be called -upon to pay compensation for an accident arising out of driver's rash and negligent driving of the bus. Relevant issues were raised and evidence of the parties was recorded. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. On the conclusion of the trial the Tribunal held (1) the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus RSQ 8851 by its driver Arjunsingh; (2) the claimants were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 75,000/ - as compensation from the owner and driver of the bus, and (3) the insurer was not liable for the payment of compensation so assessed because driver of the bus was not holding a valid licence to drive the heavy passenger motor vehicle. An award was accordingly made. Aggrieved against the said award the owner and the driver have come up in appeal,
(3.) I have heard Shri R.P. Vyas learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr. M.M. Singhvi learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, sand Mr. R.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer.;