TAWARKU RAM Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment/order as the same question of law and fact are involved. The claim petitions filed by the appellants herein were dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the sole ground that rash and negligent driving was not proved. The learned Tribunal relied upon report Ex. RW 1/A to hold that it was a mechanical defect which was the cause of the accident. I find that the learned Tribunal is incorrect in appreciating the law on the point. What is required to be proved was the fact that all necessary care and caution was taken to keep the vehicle in good condition. The law on this point is well settled in Smt. Mewa Devi and others etc. v. M/s. Ram Parkash Rajinder Paul and another, 1990 AIR(HP) 53 holding:--

(2.) At this juncture I also note that evidence of PW 1 Tawarku was that the bus was being driven at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner, was disbelieved because of the report. This is not the proper way of the appreciation of the evidence. In these circumstances, the cases are remanded to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. Parties be granted opportunity for leading such other and further evidence in support of their contentions. Parties shall appear before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur Civil Division, at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. on 2nd April, 2013. The learned Tribunal shall dispose of all the cases not later than six months for the date when the parties first put in appearance. Appeals stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.