YASHODHARA Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six miscellaneous appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common order dated 11.4.2000 of Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Claim Petition Nos. 113/98, 115/98, 117/98, 116/98, 1031/98 and 500/99 except Claim No. 114/98, hence they are being disposed by this common order.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the appellants filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur with the averments that on 30.6.1998 at around 6.00 a.m. deceased Ratan Singh, Bhoop Singh, Inderjeet Singh, Sheolal, Subhash and injured Ram Chandra and Raj Kumar were going in Jeep No. RJ 14 3C 701 towards Newai on receiving information about illicit liquor. When the Jeep reached near village Jaisinghpura Truck No. RJ 05 G 0376 came from the opposite side which was driven rashly and negligently. This truck hit the Jeep from the front side because of which Ratan Singh, Bhoop Singh, Inderjeet Singh, Seolal and Subhash died and Raj Kumar and Ram Chandra sustained injuries. Claimant-appellants filed Claim Petition Nos. 113/98, 115/98, 117/98, 114/98, 116/98, 1031/98 and 500/99, claiming respective amounts as mentioned in their claim petitions on account of death of Ratan Singh, Bhoop Singh, Inderjeet Singh, Seolal and Subhash and injuries received by Raj Kumar and Ram Chandra. Against respondent No. 1 Gopal ex parte order was passed on 27.10.1998 in all the claim petitions and respondent No. 2 Abdul Latif did not appear before the MACT. Jaipur despite due service on him in all the claim petitions. The claim petitions were contested by the respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. on technical ground and fact of accident was not disputed. It was contended by the Insurance Company that the truck was insured with them and if the liability of paying compensation is fixed on them the same may be decided on the principle of contributory negligence. Issue No. 1 in claim petition Nos. 113/98, 116/98, 117/98 and 115/98 related to death of Ratan Singh, Boop Singh, Inderjeet Singh, Sheo Lal and Subhash. Issue No. 1 in claim petition Nos. 1031/98 and 500/99 related to injuries received by injured Ramchandra and Rajkumar. Five issues were framed in all the claim petitions. After recording the statements of the witnesses the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide its common order dated 11.4.2000 rejected all the claim petitions. Against the common order dated 11.4.2000 these six appeals have been preferred.

(3.) Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the observations given by the Tribunal in the impugned order is contrary to evidence which has been recorded by the Tribunal itself. The learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of AW-6 Ram Chandra who is an injured eye witness of the occurrence. He stated in his statement that the accident had taken place because the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. He has also stated that when the truck hit the Jeep, the same was on the correct side and it had gone on the wrong side after being hit by the truck. The Tribunal disbelieved this witness only on the ground that the truck hit the jeep twice. The learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on site plan Ex. 4. In the site plan map jeep has been shown about 3 ft. on the wrong side. The learned Counsel argued that the site plan is prepared after the incident has taken place and shows the last position of the vehicles where they stopped. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the site plan should be appreciated in the light of the statement of AW 6 Ram Chandra injured, who has stated that the jeep has gone on the wrong side because of hitting by the truck and the Tribunal has not considered this fact. The learned Counsel further contended that an FIR was lodged regarding the accident which was produced before the Tribunal as Ex. 3. In the FIR it has been clearly mentioned that the truck had hit the jeep from the opposite side. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the FIR in the right manner. Further it has been contended that there is no rebuttal by the respondents to prove that the accident had not taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck. In this regard attention of this Court has been drawn on the cases of said Peer Asraf Shah Jilani and Another v. Indra Jeet and Others,2005 10 RDD 4556; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and Others, 2007 4 ACC 335 Heer Singh and Others v. Jai Singh and Others, 2005 1 ACC 718 RSRTC and Another v. Manorma Devi and Others, 2005 1 ACC 798; and Daya Bhai and Others v. Shri Gopal and Others, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 74, 61, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81 of 1997, I (2010) ACC 823=I (2010) CCR 454=Lastly the learned Counsel contended that the order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the Tribunal may be set aside or in the alternative the matter should be remanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgments.