IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R 1. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.916 of 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited VERSUS Gyan Singh son of Shri Mawasi and Others 2. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.921 of 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited VERSUS Dayalu @ Jalu son of Shri Mawasi and Others 3. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.922 of 2010 United India Insurance Company Limited VERSUS Smt. Baijyanti wife of Shri Dyalu and Others Date of Order :::: March 29th, 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Amol Vyas, Counsel for the appellant-insurance-company *** By the Court :
All these miscellaneous appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred by the appellant-insurance-company against the award dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bayana, District Bharatpur.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance-company is that firstly the learned Tribunal has erred in giving the finding that the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.UP-85-C-8855 in which the claimants were traveling was being driven rashly and negligently, whereas in fact as per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company the offending vehicle was a truck bearing No.HR-38-B-1979, which is borne out from the evidence of the claimants themselves.
With a view to appreciate the aforesaid, I have gone through the findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 and I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the present one is a case, which involves the use of two motor vehicles and thus, is a case of composite negligence and the owners and the insurers of both these vehicles have been held jointly and severally liable.
In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings on Issue No.1 given by the learned Tribunal.
The second submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that the driver of the Tata Sumo had in fact taken passengers for hire and reward in the vehicle and the driver in question and did not possess a valid license for driving vehicle as a transport vehicle. The burden on this issue was also upon the insurance-company, appellant.
Issue No.3, which was decided by the learned Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant, insurance-company having raised the issue had failed to prove the same by direct evidence or from elucidating this fact in evidence in cross-examination of the claimants or their witnesses. The suggestion made by the appellant in this regard to the witness was denied. In the absence of any direct evidence by the appellant to substantiate the aforesaid contentions the findings given by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the aforesaid contentions.
Learned counsel for the insurance-company sought to contend that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the interest @ 9% per annum upon failure of the appellant to deposit the amount as awarded within two months of the award.
In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the directions contained in the impugned award for the award of interest, which do not appear to be punitive and thus, do not call for any interference.
In view of the above, these miscellaneous appeals and the stay applications are accordingly dismissed.
(Dalip Singh), J.
Ashok