IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 854 of 2006 Smt. Manjeet Kaur & others …. Appellants. Versus Dharmendra Tuli & another .. Respondents. Sri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for appellants. Sri D.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1. Sri B.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Dated: 30-6-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 17-10-2006, passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, U.S. Nagar, in MACP Case No. 18/2005. 2- Brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that deceased-Kripal Singh met with an accident on 6.12.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. when he was coming from Moradabad towards his home by driving his Bollaro Jeep No. UA 06B/3474. When he reached near Koshi Bridge Village Mukandpur, a Tractor Trolley No. UA 06C/7598 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased’s vehicle from driver’s side due to which the deceased died at the spot. The deceased at the time of accident was 40 years of age and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by ploughing. The claimants thus claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. 2 3- The Opposite Party No.1/ owner of the Tractor in question filed written statement admitting therein the factum of accident, registration of offending vehicle in his name and insurance of vehicle with opposite party no. 2- National Insurance Co. Ltd. He took additional plea that driver and owner of Bullaro Jeep No. U.A.06B- 3474 are necessary parties in the claim petition and said accident occurred on account of rash of driver of offending jeep and driver of tractor was plying the tractor in a slow speed and tractor was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident and driver of tractor was holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. 4- The Opposite Party No.2/National Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the petition by filing its written statement and alleged that the information of the accident was not given to the insurance company. It has pleaded that said accident occurred due to rash and negligence of driver of offending Bullaro Jeep and information in this regard was given to S.P. Rampur by owner of tractor through regd. Post, in which he stated that driver of tractor-Jagdish was going to Kashipur by plying the tractor in his side, but accident was the result of joint negligence due to collision of Bullaro Jeep coming from front side and insurer of Bullaro Jeep was necessary party in the claim petition. It has also pleaded that tractor in question was being used for agricultural purpose and tractor trolley was loaded with sand and trolley was not insured. It has further pleaded that amount of compensation as 3 claimed is exorbitant and claim petition is liable to be dismissed on those grounds. 5- The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed following issues in the claim petition: (i) Whether the accident occurred on 6.12.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. near Village Mukundpur at Kashipur-Rudrapur road, near Kosi Pul, Bahad P.S. Swar, District Rampur, due to rash and negligence of driver of Bullaro Jeep No. U.A.06B-3474 or due to rash and negligence of driver of Tractor No. U.A.06C-7598, in which Kripal Singh son of Preetam Singh died? If yes, its effect? (ii) Whether claim petition is bad for non- joinder of insurer of Bullaro Jeep No. U.A.06B-3474? If yes, its effect? (iii) Whether claimants are entitled to get any amount of compensation? If yes, then what amount and from whom? 7- Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 17.10.2006. 8- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants– claimants have preferred the appeal before this Court. 4 9- Heard Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for appellants, Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri B.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 10- I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. The claimants stated in the claim petition that said accident occurred due to rash and negligence of driver of Tractor No. U.A.06C-7598, whereas opposite parties stated in their written statements that said accident occurred due to rash and negligence of driver of Bullaro Jeep No. U.A.06B-3474. The learned Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that the said accident occurred on 6.12.2004 at 6.30 p.m. due to rash and negligence of driver of Bullaro Jeep No. U.A. 06B-3474 at P.S. Swar, District Rampur, as PW-2 stated in his deposition that driver of Bullaro Jeep hit the tractor coming from his side from his jeep, whereas there was tractor before trolley and if the accident would have been occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor then first jeep should be dashed with tractor instead of trolley. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 11- As far as issue no. 2 with regard to non- joinder of insurer of Bullaro Jeep No. U.A. 06B/3474 as party in the claim petition is concerned, the record reveals that PW-1 Preetam Singh stated in his deposition that Jeep was registered in the name of deceased-Kripal Singh and the said Jeep was not insured, therefore, insurer of 5 Jeep was not made party. The Tribunal held that if there was no insurance of Bullaro Jeep then there was no ground of making the insurance company as party. Thus, the claim petition cannot be said to be bad for non-joinder of insurance company as party. I do not find any illegality in this finding recorded by the Tribunal. 12- As far as issue no. 3 with regard to amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, it is proved that said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Bullaro Jeep No. U.A.06B-3474. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that claimants are not entitled to get any compensation against the opposite parties. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 13- For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 17.10.2006 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6