Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1630 (RAJ)

Saraswati Devi v. Ram Avtar

2004-11-05

R.P.VYAS

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. This instant civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated July 15, 1994 given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dausa, Camp at Bandikui, thereby dismissing the claim petition No. 96/98 of the claimant-appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on August 19, 1998 at about 7 P.M., the son of the appellant Mahaveer Prasad was going in Jeep No. 6778 to his village Gola Ka Bas. The said Jeep was driven rashly and negligently by its driver - respondent No. 4 Girraj Prasad. The said Jeep when reached near Bhiaroji-ka-Deora on Dausa-Santhal Road, it collided with another vehicle No. RND 1398, resulting in instantaneous death of Mahaveer Prasad and other occupants of the jeep sustained injuries. The claimant-appellant further averred in the claim petition that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers of the respective vehicles. He further averred in the claim petition that the appellant's son was aged 16 years and also claimed a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/- as compensation from the owners, drivers and insurers of the aforesaid vehicles involved in the accident on 19.8.88. 3. The claim of the appellant was opposed by respondent No. 3 - the National Insurance Company and it denied all the allegations of the claimant and inter alia alleged that the owner of the truck has not given any information in terms of the policy and the claimant is not entitled to get any relief from it as a insurer. Not only that, but also further averred that no premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle in question and, as such, the Policy was cancelled. 4. Respondent No. 6 - the United India Insurance Company Ltd. averred that the vehicle No. RJV 6778 was insured by the United India Insurance Company. It was further alleged that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. RND 1398. It was also alleged that the deceased was the fare passenger in the jeep in question, therefore, in such circumstances, the claimant-appellant is not entitled to get the compensation by the Insurance Company respondent No. 6., i.e. the United India Insurance Company Ltd. 5. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 admitted the names of the owners/drivers and the Insurance Company of the respective vehicles involved in the accident. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 admitted the names of the owners/drivers and the Insurance Company of the respective vehicles involved in the accident. They have stated that the truck No. RND 1398 was driven rashly and negligently which collided with Jeep No. RJV 6778. 6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not attend the proceedings, despite the notices to them and, therefore, the ex pare order was passed against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 7. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues HINDI MATTER 355711 8. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and examining the documentary as well as the oral evidence on record, decided the claim petition vide its award dated 15.7.94 and dismissed the claim petition of the appellant claimant for want of proof of rash and negligency on the part of both the drivers of their respective vehicles involved in the accident on 19.8.88. 9. The claimant, being aggrieved and dis - satisfied by the impugned award dated 15.7.94, preferred this miscellaneous appeal. 10. The appellant-claimant contended that the finding which has been arrived at by the learned Tribunal against the appellant, especially in respect of issue No. 1, is contrary to the facts, law, circumstances and evidence on record. Therefore, such finding of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside and the appellant is entitled to be paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000/- on account of death of son of the appellant claimant. It was further contended with reference to finding on issue No. 1 that rash and negligence on the part of the respective drivers was not proved and, as such, the opposite parties were not held liable to pay compensation to the appellant. Not only that, but it was also contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the eye witnesses properly, though they have categorically stated that the accident occurred due to driving of the truck as well as the Jeep in question, as such the compensation was payable by all the opposite parties jointly and severally to the appellant. He has further vehemently argued that the Tribunal has acted illegally in not taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred due to composite negligence. There is ample evidence on record that the said accident is the outcome of the negligence on the part of both the drivers. He has further vehemently argued that the Tribunal has acted illegally in not taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred due to composite negligence. There is ample evidence on record that the said accident is the outcome of the negligence on the part of both the drivers. Therefore, in these circumstances, the appellant claimant is entitled to recover the compensation either from the owners of the drivers as well as the insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident in question. He has further contended other relevant grounds with reference to the facts finding enquiry under issue No. 1, which is not legal and proper and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts on record and the Tribunal has also failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly, whereas the claimant appellant proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and has proved the negligence on the part of the respondents. Despite that, instead of making any proper and cogent finding, the Tribunal has superficially a preciated the facts and decided the issue which is not justifiable in the eye of law. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while considering the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- without any rhyme or reason. The said amount so determined is based on surmises and conjectures. The appellant claimant is entitled to be paid the compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/- as claimed in the claim petition on account of the death of the young son, so that the finding in this regard is also illegal in all respects. 11. The matter was contested by the respondent Insurer. The other parties denied all the facts as alleged in the claim petition and contended that the claimant appellant has failed to establish the rash and negligency on the part of the drivers related to the vehicles in question; therefore, under such circumstances, the claimant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation from the respondents. 12. He supported the findings arrived at by the Tribunal with reference to different issues and averred that the claimants are not entitled to get any relief so claimed in the claim petition. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for he parties at length and closely scrutinised all the issues so framed by the Tribunal. 14. 12. He supported the findings arrived at by the Tribunal with reference to different issues and averred that the claimants are not entitled to get any relief so claimed in the claim petition. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for he parties at length and closely scrutinised all the issues so framed by the Tribunal. 14. The issue No. 1, which has been decided by the Tribunal while holding that the claimant has failed to prove the rash and engligency on the part of the vehicles in question which caused the death of his son, but, before making any comments on the merits of the said issue, I appreciate the facts and evidence on record as well as the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the different decisions. I am on the view that in order to meet the ends of justice and looking to the object of the Motor Vehicles Act which is based on the principle of benevolency, the issue No. 1 requires re 'appreciation. I have further examined the other issues which have been denied on the ground that the claimant has failed to establish the rash and negligence on the part of the vehicles in question, therefore, the claimant appellant is not entitled to get any claim, so claimed in the claim petition. 15. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective and has not taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and decided the issue No. 1 which has no concrete and cogent findings. But, in order to meet the ends of justice and in view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I deem it proper to re 'appreciate the same, but without making any comments on the merits of case, the said issues are required to be reconsidered and re-appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I quash the award of the learned Tribunal dated 15.7.94 and remand this matter back to the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence existing on record afresh, without leading any fresh evidence in this matter and decide all the issues accordingly, expeditiously within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 29.11.2004. 17. 16. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 29.11.2004. 17. The civil miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal disposed of. *******