A.K.MATHUR, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment and award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 1.9.1984. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 164 of 1984 has been filed by Banshi Lal, driver of the truck and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 51 of 1985 has been filed by the claimant Rawat Singh for suitable enhancement of the compensation.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 19.7.1978 the truck bearing No. RRQ 6793 was coming from Rampura to Jodhpur. Rawat Singh boarded the truck from Rampura. When the truck reached near Khokhariya Bera (well) it met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver, as a result of which the claimant -appellant Rawat Singh received injuries and he had to be hospitalised for quite some time. Therefore, he filed a claim petition on the ground that he had received these injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver Banshi Lal. The claim was contested by the driver Banshi Lal, owner Manohar Lal and United India Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurance company') with whom the truck was insured. The case of the non -claimants was that in fact the truck was carrying drums of milk and near Khokhariya well its tyre rod gave away and it dashed against the pal and turned back in a little tilted position. It was further submitted that during the course of this accident the injured Rawat Singh jumped out of the truck and as such he received injuries. The learned Tribunal after recording the necessary evidence and hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the injured was given lift by the driver of the truck for hire and reward as the injured Rawat Singh had paid a sum of Rs. 2/ - to driver Banshi Lal. The learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - to the injured Rawat Singh against the driver and absolved the insurance company of its liability as it found that the owner was not responsible for the unauthorised act of the driver of taking Rawat Singh as a passenger for hire and reward. Since the owner was not found responsible, therefore, the insurance company was not held liable to indemnify the injured.
(3.) MR . Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that Rawat Singh was totally an unauthorised person and the driver has given him lift gratuitously therefore, he cannot be made responsible for his injuries. It is also alleged that the compensation should have been awarded against the insurance company.;