Nanak Mohta, J. - (1.) These appeals are directed by the claimants as well as by the owner of the vehicle against the Judgment and Award dated 25.4.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur in MACT Case No. 100 of 2004 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 5,78,300/- plus interest @ 7% p.a. as compensation in favour of the claimants and against non-claimant No.1-Jetharam owner and nonclaimant No.2-Ramchandra driver of the vehicle.
(2.) Brief facts of this case, are that on 21.4.2004, deceased Hariram and his companions were going in Jeep bearing No. RJ 19-D/1257 from Village Mundwa to Saliyana Via Thirod to attend a marriage. It was alleged that when they were returning, the jeep driver Ramchandra drove the jeep in rash and negligent manner at high speed and resultantly, it turtled. Hariram sustained injuries who was taken to Mundwa Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Nagaur and then to MDM Hospital Jodhpur where he succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment on 26.4.2004.It was also alleged that Jetharam (appellant) was registered owner of the said Jeep at the time of accident and the said jeep was insured with United Assurance Company, Nagaur. It was further stated that the deceased Hari Ram was a Government Servant, who untimely expired in accident. His age was 35 years and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4410/- per month. Due to untimely death of Hari Ram, the family suffered a heavy loss of money and other benefits. The claimants were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased. The claimants filed a claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 28,24,558/- on various heads, in the court of M.A.C.T, Nagaur.
(3.) After service of notices, non-claimant No.2-Jetha Ram (appellant) filed reply to the claim petition stating therein that he sold out the vehicle in question to Ram Chandra (non-claimant No.1) on 27.2.2004 much before accident occurred. After transferring the ownership, requisite Forms No.29 and 30 were signed and the same were handed-over to him along with jeep on 27.2.2004, therefore, Ramchandra was owner of the said vehicle at the time of accident i.e. 21.4.2004. After accident, the jeep was seized and remained in police custody. Thereafter, Ramchandra got the vehicle released from the custody, therefore, the appellant was not responsible for the payment of compensation. It was also stated that the vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.3. Thus, if any situation arises for compensation then Insurance Company would be responsible. Thus, it was stated that respondents Ramchandra and Insurance Company were fully responsible for the payment of compensation to the claimants.;