RAMSINGH Vs. SHIVAJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging award dated 12.3.1997, passed by the Second Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (for short, 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 46 of 1993.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants-claimants are the parents of deceased Guddi who was 22 years of age at the time of accident. On 5.6.1993 she was travelling in a Matador bearing No. MP 08-2035. She was going from Badar-was to her house. When Matador reached the village Chitara on the Agra-Bombay Road, a truck bearing No. MBW 1418 came from the opposite side and dashed against the said Matador. Matador tumbled due to the impact of the dash and Guddi died in the accident. Guddi was the wife of Jagdish, respondent No. 7, but she was residing separately from Jagdish. She was residing with her parents. It is also alleged that Jagdish, respondent No. 7, was living separately with some other lady whom he has married. It is, however, admitted that there is no divorce between Jagdish and Guddi. The claimants, i.e., the parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition for compensation for the death of their daughter Guddi. The Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000 towards compensation. The Tribunal held respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 liable jointly as well as severally on the ground of contributory negligence and directed them to pay the said amount of compensation in equal shares. Claims Tribunal exonerated the respondent No. 6 from the liability to pay compensation.

(3.) The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that once the Claims Tribunal has found that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the two vehicles, then the Claims Tribunal should have held all the 5 persons, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 5, jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation and should not have issued the direction of apportioning the liability equally. For this purpose learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this court in Lakhan Singh v. Shivaji Rao, decided on 8.2.2005 (MP). The said case arises out of the same accident from which the present appeal arises and the Division Bench in the said case has held that all the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are liable to pay the amount of compensation. In view of this judgment I allow this appeal in part and direct that all the five respondents, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 5, shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.