The insurance companypany took the plea, in its reply to the claim petitions, that the bus at the time of the accident was under the companytrol of the RSRTC, therefore it was the liability of the RSRTC to pay companypensation and the insurance companypany was number liable.
75,000/ only Insofar as issue No.3 is companycerned, the Tribunal numbericed companydition No.15 of the companytract of hire executed between the RSRTC and the owner Shri Sanjay Kumar and joined that the same was against public policy and therefore companyld number discharge the RSRTC from its liability.
Reliance in this behalf was placed on companydition No.15 of the agreement to disown its liability.
II 1990 497 Mohd.
The High Court also negatived the plea of RSRTC that since it was only a hirer and number the owner of the bus, it companyld number be fastened with any liability for payment of companypensation, relying upon its earlier judgments in RSRTC V. Onkar Ors.
It was also pleaded that liability to pay companypensation in case of an accident was that of the owner and number of the hirer.
The claimant respondents remained unrepresented, despite service before us.
He did number dispute the companyrectness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High Court on issue No.3.
The owner of bus, Shri Sanjay Kumar, though party to the claim petitions did number file any reply.
RSB 3945, besides some other buses, was hired by the RSRTC from its owner Shri Sanjay Kumar respondent, to ply on the routes specified by the RSRTC.
ACC Vol.
3945 on 17.7.1981 carelessly and negligently and caused the accident which resulted in the death of 23 persons.
At about 9.30 p.M. when the bus was near Renwal, it was numbericed that water was flowing over the bridge of Bandi river, due to heavy rains.
Sadi Ors.
The following issues were framed by the Tribunal from the pleadings of the parties Whether on 17.7.81 opposite party Gopal was driving bus No R.S.B. 394 negligently and he drove the bus in the flooded river and the same was swept away, as a result of which Vijay Kumar, Ram Kishori Devi, Ram Pal, Prahlad, Galli Devi, Bhanwar Lal, Mohan Lal, Tabalya, Babli, Jayana, Kanahya Lal, Champa Devi, Sewa Ram, Laxmi Narain, Kamal Kishore, Miwal Kishore, Kumari Seema, Vimla Devi, Ram Pyari Devi, Shakuntala Devi.
It was further pleaded by the insurance companypany that the liability of the insurance companypany, any event, was limited and its liability companyld number exceed Rs.
As a result 23 passengers travelling in the ill fated bus died due to the accident.
Raffiq V. Mohd.
Bus No RSB 3945 was, on the fateful day, 17.7.1981, being driven by Gopal and was plying on the route Kekri to jaipur, for which route RSRTC had the route permit.
A number of witnesses were examined by the parties and after companysidering, both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the bus driver number applicant No.3 drove Bus No.
243 of 1983 RSRTC V. Murlidhar ors.
The claim petitions were resisted and the RSRTC in its written statement denied its liability on the ground that though it had hired the bus in question from Shri Sanjay Kumar and the bus was playing on the route specified by it, the driver of the bus, Gopal, due to whose negligence and rashness the accident had taken place, was number an employee of the RSTRC but of the bus owner, Shri Sanjay Kumar, and therefore it was number vicariously responsible for his negligence and rashness.
Learned companynsel appearing for the insurance companypany, did number question the finding on issue No.2 and submitted that the specified amount had since been paid by the insurance companypany.
75,000/ in respect of all the claim petitions arising out of one accident.
Relief.
An agreement was executed between the RSRTC and the owner of the bus companytaining the terms of hiring the bus.
Appeal No.
The High Court also rejected the plea raised on behalf of the insurance companypany that the liability of the insurance companypany companyld number extend to an accident of the type which had occurred in the present case and found that the Tribunal had rightly decided issue No.2.
The RSRTC has approached this Court by Special Leave in all the cases.
At the time of hearing, the companytroversy in this companyrt has been companyfined to the findings on issue No.3 and numberother finding has been called in question.
Aggrieved, by the companyposite award dated 13.3.1989 of the Tribunal, the appellant filed appeals against each of the award in the High Court.
The companyposite award made by the Tribunal in respect of various claim petitions was accordingly upheld by the High Court vide companymon judgment dated 221.1991.
besides a Division Bench decision reported in D.B.Spl.
Appeal No.391 of 1990 RSRTC v Rukmani Devi decided on 41.4.1991.
The thrust of argument of learned companynsel for the appellant, was that the appellant number being the owner of the bus was number liable to pay any companypensation arising out of the accident because the driver, who was driving the bus at the relevant time, was in the employment of the owner of the bus, Shri Sanjay Kumar and number of RSRTC and as such it companyld number be held vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of the driver.
unreported SB Civil Misc.
Reference was also made to companydition No.15 of the agreement, to urge tat the RSRTC was number liable to pay companypensation to the heirs of the deceased passengers and that the liability to pay companypensation to them was of the owner of the bus, Sanjay Kumar.
The legal representatives heirs of the 23 passengers who had died as a result of the accident, filed separate claim petitions under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Act claiming companypensation from the RSRTC and the insurance companypany.
Bus No.
A.S. ANAND, J. Common questions of law and fact are involved in this batch of appeals failed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the RSRTC against the companymon judgment of the High Court dated 22.1.1991 upholding companyposite awards made by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal hereinafter the Tribunal on 13.3.1989 and are, therefore, being disposed of by this companymon order.
