ARUN BHANSALI,J. - (1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 16/9/1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the applications for compensation filed by the claimants have been rejected.
(2.) The applications for compensation were filed by Smt. Meena Jain and Master Gaurav seeking compensation for the death of Kumari Sonu @ Sonia and by Smt. Meena Jain, Master Gaurav and Smt. Sayar Kanwar for the death of Narpat Raj Mehta inter alia with the averments that on 5/9/1993 deceased Narpat Raj Mehta was driving car no. RJ-22-C-0155 from Pali to Jodhpur along with his wife Meena, mother Sayar Kanwar and Children Sonu and Gaurav; the car, on Pali-Jodhpur road in front of Kudi Petrol Pump at Kudi Village at about 2.00 pm, suddenly collided with a 'Neem' tree. On account of injuries suffered, the driver Narpat Raj Mehta died on the spot, Ku. Sonia was admitted to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, where she also succumbed to the injuries and other occupants of the car also suffered injuries. The vehicle belonged to non-applicant No. 2 and was insured with non-applicant no.1, who are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. For the death of Sonu, compensation to the tune of Rs. 6 Lakh and for the death of Narpat Raj Mehta, compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,46,000/- was claimed.
(3.) Response was filed by the Insurance Company inter alia with the averments that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the compensation claimed was exaggerated and the vehicle was over-loaded. It was also contended that based on the averments made in the application, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation as Narpat Raj Mehta himself was driving the car and, therefore, his legal representatives were not entitled to any compensation from the Insurance Company and till such time the accident does not occur on account of negligence of driver of the vehicle the Insurance Company cannot be held liable and, therefore, the applications deserve to be dismissed. The owner of the vehicle did not appear and as such the matter proceeded ex-parte against him. ;