MOHTA, J. - (1.) THESE five misc. appeals alongwith cross-objection in Appeal No. 107/97 have arisen out of a single accident, for which, Claim Cases Nos. 178/94, 191/94, 168/94 and 13/95 were preferred by the respective parties before the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur who vide his judgment and award dated 16. 9. 1996 decided the claim petitions. Since, in all these appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a Claim Petition No. 178/94 was moved by Smt. Anita Jain w/o Shri Virendra Jain (deceased), Claim Petition No. 191/94 was filed by Smt. Kamla Bai w/o Shri Ratan Lal (deceased), Claim Petition No. 168/94 was filed by Smt. Tara (injured) and Claim Petition No. 13/95 was filed by Nathu (father of deceased Raman) wherein it was stated that on 18. 4. 1994, Smt. Tara, Shanker, Virendra, Ratanlal and Raman were travelling in a Jeep bearing No. RJK 1193, which was being driven by Lokendra Singh rashly and negligently at high speed, consequently, the jeep driver has lost his control whereby the jeep fell down in the river, as a result of which, the occupants travelling in jeep have received grievous injuries on their persons and due to severe injuries, the occupants Virendra, Ratanlal and Raman died and others got injured. With reference to Claim Case No. 178/1994, it was stated that at the time of accident, the deceased Virendra was 30 years old and he was earning Rs. 14,400.00 per year from M/s. Minerva Stones and Rs. 14,400.00 per year from M/s. Mayur Marbles where he was doing the job of Manager in both the Firms. The claimants are widow, minor children and mother of the deceased. It was stated that they were dependent on the income of the deceased. Due to untimely death, they suffered a heavy loss of dependency. They claimed Rs. 19,50,000.00 by way of compensation under different heads. With reference to Claim Case No. 191/1994, it was stated that the deceased Ratanlal aged 40/45 years, was running a Tea Stall/canteen wherefrom he was earning Rs. 1300.00 per month. Besides this, he used to sit on the water-hut and was earning Rs. 300.00 per month, which was being paid by the Bar Association, Sagwara. It was further stated that he was earning Rs. 500.00 per month by doing "pooja Path" (prayer to God ). The claimants are widow and children of the deceased. They were dependent on the income of the deceased. They claimed Rs. 14,30,000.00 as compensation under different heads. With reference to Claim Case No. 13/1995, they deceased Raman, at the time of accident, was 25 years old and he was earning Rs. 2000.00 per month by way of serving in hotel. It was further stated that he was having 18 Bighas of agriculture land from which he was earning Rs. 3000.00 per month. The claimants are old father and mother of the deceased. They were dependent upon the income of the deceased. They claimed Rs. 16,50,000.00 as compensation under different heads. With reference to Claim Case No. 168/1994, it was stated that Smt. Tara was travelling in the said jeep alongwith her two daughters. Due to accident she got serious injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. Her age was 28 years at the time of accident and she alleged that she became disabled upto 50% permanently and due to that she became unable to perform work as usual. She claimed Rs. 9,56,000.00 as compensation under different heads.
(3.) IT was stated in the claim petitions that at the time of accident the owner of the Jeep was Badri Lal and the said jeep was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. IT was alleged in the claim petitions that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep, therefore, the non- claimants are responsible for the payment of compensation. In reply filed by Non-claimants No. 1 and 2, it was stated that the accident did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the jeep. Thus, the answering respondents are not liable to pay compensation. In other reply filed by the Insurance Company, it was stated that the vehicle was insured with the insurer for a period of one year for the purpose of Third Party Liabilities. The deceased and the injured were passengers in the jeep. They were not insured and it was alleged that the jeep was carrying passengers. That was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, the Insurance Company is not responsible to pay compensation. The other averments made in the claim petitions were denied for want of knowledge. It was prayed that the claim petitions may be rejected. ;