NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid thirteen appeals have been filed against the judgments and awards dt. 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006 and 16.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramganj Mandi, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kota respectively, since they are related to one accident, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being disposed by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.5.2003 at about 12.30 PM, Shyam Lal, Bhanwri, Prahlad, Bhoora, Savitri, Maina, Vinod, Mangi Lal, Radhey Shyam, Kannu, Shambhu Dayal, Dhanraj, Kalu Lal and others were going in Jeep No. RJ 34-P--0176 from Kota to Jhalawar. In the afternoon at about 2.00 PM, near village Padampura, Truck No. M.P.-09-KB--7198 being driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at an excessive speed, hit the jeep. One Maruti Zen No. RJ. 20-C-6229, which was plying behind the Jeep also caused the accident due to rash, negligent and excessive driving of the Maruti Car. In the aforesaid accident, Shyam Lal, Bhanwari Bai, Prahalad, Bhoora, Savitri, Maina, Kannu, Dhanraj Kalu and Vinod died and others sustained injuries.

(2.) Thereafter the notices were issued to the respondents including the united India Insurance Company Limited, reply was filed, issues were framed, evidence-oral as well as documentary was submitted by both the sides and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed different amounts in different claim petitions on different dates, as mentioned here-in-above. Against the impugned judgments and awards, the aforesaid thirteen appeals nave been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd.

(3.) Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd. Mr. R.P. Vijay has contended that the judgment of the Tribunal mentioned here-in-above is illegal, ureasonable and contrary to the law. He has further contended that while deciding the aforesaid claim petitions, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record while deciding the issue pertaining to negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles, as such the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the car hit the Jeep and then crossed, similarly the Jeep hit at the side of wheel of truck and moved forwardly as such the truck fell down over the jeep. As such the truck driver cannot be said to be negligent and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the car and Jeep driver, hence the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the statement of witnesses cannot be relied as they were sitting in over-loaded jeep at its middle or back seat. He has further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and while passing the impugned awards, the learned Tribunals have not considered this fact and the arguments which have been advanced by him. He has further contended that there is a contributory negligence of the driver of Jeep and Car along with truck driver. The learned Tribunals have not considered the fact of contributory negligence at the time of passing the award, hence, the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the entire liability should be shifted upon the State Government on the ground that I the officers of the concerned Department of the State Government permit such type of vehicles to ply on the road taking the passengers from one place to another place in rash manner, contrary to the provisions of law.