C.M. Nayar, J.@mdashThe present appeal is directed against the award dated December 12, 1979 of Shri Mahendra Pal, Judge Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal , Delhi The respondents claimants filed claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 for grant of compensation of Rs.
50,000/-. The claimants are the widow and children of the deceased Ganga Ram, who was killed in accident on October 29,1969 at about 7 p.m.
on Ring Road near Double Storey Military Quarters, near village Naraina, Delhi. The deceased Ganga Ram was riding his horse-cart when
respondent No. 2, while driving truck No. DLL-5851 rashly and negligently first struck against the cyclist, going on his wrong side and after
causing injuries to the cyclist dashed against horse-cart of Ganga Ram from behind and dragged the deceased as well as the horse-cart to a
considerable distance crushing him as well as the horse on the spot. The said respondent was driving the offending truck under the employment and
direction of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 despite service did not appear and contest the case.
2. Respondent No. 3 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the application for compensation was not on proper from and merits
dismissal. On merits, he, however, admitted to be the owner of the offending truck and also admitted that the same insured with appellant
Insurance Company. The only plea, which has been raised by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the company had entered into the contract
of insurance with M/s. R.S. Rana & Sons for insuring the offending vehicle. The appellant never entered into any contract of insurance with
respondent No. 3. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable. The learned Judge rejected this plea and held that the owner of the offending
truck on the date of accident was respondent No. 3, Sampuran Singh and he was also the insured with the appellant. The quantum of
compensation was assessed at Rs. 37,440/- which was held recoverable from the appellants as well as respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has only reiterated the arguments which were raised before the Tribunal. There is no infirmity and
illegality in the finding of the Tribunal which is based on appreciation of evidence that the owner of the offending truck on the date of accident was
respondent No. 3 and he was the insured with appellant.
4. The appeal, as a consequence, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.