The judgment of this Court in FAO No.738 of 2006 is binding on the parties being judgment in personem. The learned counsel for the respondents could not point out anything to material in the said judgment, in which the findings of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak holding that the offending vehicle was being used for plying passengers in contravention of the Insurance policy and that the Insurance company was entitled to recover the amount of compensation from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, were affirmed by this Court, which would implore this Court to take a contrary view. Accordingly, in these three appeals, the same view is taken in order to avoid conflict of observations in the similar set of circumstances, in the same accident. Accordingly, in these three appeals the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhajjar in the impugned award dated 30.9.2008 on issue No.3, that the offending vehicle in question was being driven as per terms and conditions of the Insurance policy” are reversed and it is held that the offending vehicle was being used for plying passengers in contravention of the Insurance policy and therefore, the appellant in these appeals is held entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the driver and owner, jointly and severally.
