JUDGMENT
Uma Nath Singh, J.
1. This judgment shall also dispose of connected 11 appeals F.A.O. Nos. 3020 of 2005 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Roop Lal 3021 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harvinder Kaur and Ors. 3022 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritpal Singh and Ors. 3023 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harbhajan Singh and Ors. 3024 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Kausual and Ors. 3025 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. 3026 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. 3027 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. 3028 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. 3029 of 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. and 3030 of 2005 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dunia Devi and Ors. as all these appeal, arise out of a common award dated 18.2.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 128 of 2004 125 of 2004, 129 of 2004, 131 of 2004, 132 of 2004, 133 of 2004, 134 of 2004, 135 of 2004, 136 of 2004, 137 of 2004, 139 of 2004, and M.A.C.T. Case No. 140 of 2004.
2. It appears that on 10.4.2001 Vijay Thakur, Pritpal Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Madan Lal Kaushal Bin Bahadur and his son Raju, Harvinder Kaur with her husband Amrik Singh and their son. Roop Lal with his son Kamal and Ramesh Kumar and his mother Dhanpati, wife Rekha Devi, daughter Bindu and sons Sammi and Sonu were travelling in a bus No. HR-037-6906. The bus was being driven by driver-Bhoop Singh in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. At about 3 p.m. when the bus reached near Village Umri on G.T. Road and while overtaking a vehicle which was ahead of it, struck against the truck No. HR-37-A-6755 coining from opposite side. As a result occupants of bus received injuries and the driver of the vehicle Bhoop Singh so also occupants Vinay Thakur, Madan Lal Kaushal, Amrik Singh, Dhanpati, Rekha Devi, Bindu, Shammi and Sonu succumbed to these injuries, whereas Harbhajan, Pritpal, Ramesh Kumar, Harvinder, Kamal, Roop Lal, Bin Bahadur and Raju received serious multiple injuries. An F.I.R. No. 99 dated 10.4.2001 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, I.P.C. of the accident was lodged against the driver of the bus who died. In respect of the accident, as many as 14 claim petitions were filed claiming various amounts of damages. The owner of the offending vehicle so also the insurer National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed their written statements and also raised preliminary objections. The Tribunal framed three relevant issues namely, as regards the rash and negligent driving of the bus; entitlement of the claimants to get compensation, and holding of valid licence by the driver at the time of the accident. On appreciation of rival evidence, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the vehicles namely the bus and the truck have been negligent and, therefore, they were held liable for contributory negligence. Hence, the first issue was decided in favour of the claimants. Similarly, in respect of issue No. 2 regarding entitlement of receiving compensation, the Tribunal again decided in favour of the claimants, holding entitlement to get various amounts of compensation. So far as the issue relating to the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, it was held that the company did not lead any evidence to prove that the deceased driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident. Accordingly, the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation.
3. Learned Counsel, for the Insurance Company made two fold submission before this Court, firstly, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is a Fast Track Judge and in the absence of a notification in terms of Section 165, he was not competent to decide claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Secondly, learned Counsel also urged that the finding of the Tribunal as regards holding of a valid licence by the driver on the date of accident suffers from inherent defect. We have also heard learned Counsel for the respondents. They have justified the award. As regards the first contention of learned Counsel for the appellant, we would like to reproduce a notification dated 11th December, 1970 issued by Transport Department in Official Gazette of Government of Haryana. The said notification is reproduced as under:
No. S.O. 268/C.A.4/39/S.110/70–In supersession of Haryana Government, Transport Department, Notification No. S.O. 114/C.A.439S.110/68, dated the 5th December, 1968, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and all other powers enabling him on his behalf, the Governor of Haryana hereby constitutes all the District and Sessions Judges and the Additional District and Sessions Judges in the State as Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within their respective jurisdictions. The Governor of Haryana hereby further directs that all the cases triable by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal be instituted in the courts of the District and Sessions Judges acting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal who shall distribute these cases to other Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within their respective jurisdictions.
4. Thus, from a bare reading of the text of the notification, it is obvious that the Governor of Haryana has notified all the District & Sessions Judges and also all the Additional District & Sessions Judges (to) act as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within their respective jurisdictions. Learned Counsel also tried to build up his case on a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge reported in AIR (38) 1951 Punjab 355 C.N. 93 Mangal Sain v. Ajit Parshad and Anr. The said judgment has been rendered in different premises under Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947. In the relevant notification reproduced in the judgment, the powers of Tribunal have been conferred only on the District & Sessions Judges of the State. Therefore, exercise of powers of Tribunal by the Additional District & Sessions Judges were found to be incompetent. In the instant case, the legal position is different inasmuch as the Judges appointed to act as Additional District & Sessions Judges (Fast Track) on judicial side exercise the same powers and perform the same functions as Regular Additional District & Sessions Judges. Thus, in respect of their being Presiding Officers of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State, no separate notification is required and the notification issued in 1970 as aforesaid would also cover them. As regards the second submission of learned Counsel, the Tribunal has carefully discussed in para 37 of the award that the Insurance Company did not summon the concerned official from the D.T.O., Hoshiarpur, to prove that the (driving licence (Ex. R4) being held by the driver at the time of accident was fake. Though, learned Counsel for the appellant tried to explain this lacuna by submitting that the official had been summoned but by that time, their opportunity to lead evidence had been closed. We are not at all impressed by this submission for the reason that the trial of claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act, a beneficial piece of legislation, should not be an unending exercise. Further, if the opportunity was denied at that stage because of closure of their evidence, it was open for the Insurance company to move this Court by way of Civil Revision and we find none as such. Accordingly, both the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company do not find favour with this Court and as such, they are rejected.
5. Consequently, all the F.A. Os., being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.