P.I.INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. LALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals have been preferred by the appellant - dumper owner against the common judgment and award dated 30.10.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur. All these appeals involve common question of law, hence, are decided by this judgment.

(2.) The unfortunate accident happened on 13.10.1996 when the Dumper No.RJW 7758 carrying labour to Khertala Mines at about 6:00 AM was going on Devala Chouraha to Pindwara- Sirohi road and near a culvert, while the dumper was being rashly and negligently driven, it met with an accident with tractor troley no.RJ 27/P-1449 which was also being driven rashly and (4 of 8) negligently. The dumper overturned and while labour Rani, Rupa and Rati sitting in the dumper and one Sama sitting in the tractor died due to the injuries suffered by them, rest of the labours received grievous injuries. The dumper was being driven by Roop Singh. The police conducted their investigation and prima-facie found the dumper driver responsible for negligently driving while not holding the tractor driver as responsible.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was consistency in the statements made by all the claimants that the accident had happened due to the negligence of the drivers of the tractor trolley as well as dumper. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the deliberations made by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no.1. The learned Tribunal while dealing with the issue no.1, observed that the witnesses AD2 Jagga, AD3 Kanku, AD4 Jogi, AD5 Shanti, AW6 Limba, AW7 Savi, AW8 Keshi, AW9 Reshmi, AW10 Moti etc. almost all had mentioned a consistent stand that the dumper was being rashly and negligently driven and it met with accident with the tractor which was also being rashly and negligently driven. Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn attention of this Court towards para 17 of the impugned judgment in which the learned Tribunal has dealt with the issue that some of the statements rendered by the claimants were indicating that it was the negligence of the dumper driver alone. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has assumed that the witnesses were tutored and thus have gone into to depose that both the tractor and dumper were responsible for the accident due to their composite negligence. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the FIR which has been taken to be the basis for deciding the issue no.1 ought not to have been relied upon so heavily as the FIR lodger Phusa Ram was neither examined as a witness nor did he depose at any time before the learned Tribunal thus, his version that the dumper driver was intoxicated and driving the dumper on the wrong side at a fast speed cannot be believed. Moreover, the criminal proceedings cannot be treated to be baseline for determining compensation under law of torts. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is not an iota of evidence regarding intoxication or the fact of driving in wrong side raised in the issue, found place in the statements recorded. Learned counsel for the appellant has read various statements before this Court namely, Jomi, Shanti, Limba, Savi, Kesi, Bhuta and Champa. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that once all the witnesses were neutrally deposing that the composite negligence of the drivers of dumper as well as tractor was made out, it was not open for the learned Tribunal to assume total responsibility of the dumper alone.