JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed by the claimant-appellants against the common judgment and Award dated 23.7.1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (in short 'the Tribunal') in claim petition No.9/93 filed by Moti Singh and Smt. Pura parents of deceased-Khema Ram and claim petition No.10/93 filed by Smt. Fattu widow of deceased-Girdhari Ram and others, by which both the claim petitions were dismissed. 2. In short the facts of the case as revealed from the record are that 17.4.1991 vehicle No.RJC-4377 was being driven by its driver(deceased)-Girdhari Ram, who whilst going alongwith cleaner (deceased) Khema Ram on National Highway No.15 at about 7.30 'O clock in the morning when reached near 'Rudu Baba Ki Jhumpi' (13 Kms before Sindhari), at that time, truck No.GJ-9T-4170, which was being driven by Inder Singh (non-petitioner No.3) in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, collided with truck No.RJC-4377, as a result of which, Girdhari Ram (driver) and Khema Ram (cleaner) died in the accident. A report of the accident was lodged with the concerned Police Station and a criminal case No.39/91 for the offence under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 I.P.C. was registered. It is also borne out from record that the father and mother of Khema Ram ('khalasi') filed claim petition, which was registered as Claim Petition No.9/93 and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.6,36,000/- on various heads for the untimely death of Khema Ram in accident. Likewise, the legal representatives i.e. the wife, sons, father and mother of deceased-Girdhari Ram also filed a Claim Petition No.10/93 for awarding compensation of Rs.8,68,000/- on different heads. In both the claim petitions it was stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.GT-9T-4377 by its driver by Inder Singh. It was further stated that the truck bearing No.RJC-4377 was owned by non-petitioner No.1 and was insured with non-petitioner No.4. Likewise, truck No.GT-9T-4377 was owned by non-petitioner No.2 (1) & (2) and was insured with non-petitioner No.5 i.e. New India Insurance Co. The notices of the claim petitions were issued. 3. The non-petitioner No.1 owner of the truck bearing No.RJC-4377 did not file any reply. 4. The non-petitioner No.2(1) and 2(2) owner of truck bearing No.GJ-9T-4170 and the insurer of the said truck i.e. non-petitioner No.5 filed their separate replies denying their responsibility of paying compensation. The notices of the claim petitions were issued. 3. The non-petitioner No.1 owner of the truck bearing No.RJC-4377 did not file any reply. 4. The non-petitioner No.2(1) and 2(2) owner of truck bearing No.GJ-9T-4170 and the insurer of the said truck i.e. non-petitioner No.5 filed their separate replies denying their responsibility of paying compensation. Further it was stated on behalf of the owner that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of truck No.RJC-4377 by its driver. The Insurance Company took a stand that alternatively it can be a case of contributory negligence. 5. The non-petitioner No.4 (Insurer of truck No.RJC- 4377) also filed reply to the claim petitions denying the averments made therein with additional plea that Khema Ram was travelling in the truck No.RJC-4377 without paying any money, as such, on account of breach of conditions of policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the claim and the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. In special objections, it was stated that the accident took place on account of the own negligence of driver- Girdhari Ram. Thus, the Insurance Company denied the liability for the payment of compensation. 6. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of either side framed relevant issues. On behalf of claimants witnesses have been produced alongwith relevant documents. On behalf of non-petitioners also evidence was led. 7. The learned Tribunal jointly tried both the claim cases and on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed the relevant issues and after due enquiry, came to the conclusion that it has not been established by the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck No.GJ-9T-4170 being driven by Inder Singh, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to receive compensation and without determining the quantum of compensation, on the basis of the finding arrived at on issue No.1, vide his judgment and award dated 23.7.1996 dismissed both the claim petitions filed by the claimants, against which, the claimants have preferred these appeals assailing the validity and legality of the said judgment and award. The notices of these appeals were issued to the respondents. 8. The notices of these appeals were issued to the respondents. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated and considered the material available on record and has erroneously concluded issue No.1 on that basis, it was held that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck No.GT-9T-4377. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence of AW-2 Girdhari Gar in its right perspective but has mis-read his evidence and a wrong inference has been drawn on the basis that he in his statement stated 'jeep' instead of 'truck' and has further not narrated the numbers of vehicles of the concerned vehicles. Not only this, the behaviour of AW-2 Girdhari Gar has been taken to be unnatural in not taking active part in reporting the matter to the police but it was urged that looking to his total statement, the inference drawn by the learned Tribunal is perverse. On the contrary, it was not the case of the non-applicant/respondent that the concern vehicle No. GJ-9T-4170 was not involved in the accident but the non-claimants have stated in their statement that their truck was plying with a normal speed but due to rash and negligent driving and fault of the vehicle No.RJC-4377 the accident occurred. The learned Tribunal has not deeply discussed the evidence of NAW Nos.1 and 2 in this respect, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is one sided and is not sustainable. It was prayed that it requires reconsideration. 9. On the basis of finding on issue No.1 the learned Tribunal has also not decided the other relevant issues and, therefore, the judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter requires re-consideration. It was submitted that on the basis of the material available on record, it was well established that the accident occurred to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.GJ-9T-4170 being driven by Inder Singh. It was submitted that on the basis of the material available on record, it was well established that the accident occurred to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.GJ-9T-4170 being driven by Inder Singh. The learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention towards the statements of witnesses of both the sides and the other material available on record and it was further contended that the learned Tribunal has not decided the quantum of compensation, therefore, it was prayed that the finding on issue No.1 may be corrected and adequate compensation may be kindly be awarded to the claimants and the appeals filed by the claimants may be allowed. 10. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions and supported judgment and Award given by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the appeals may be dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the finding on issue No.1 arrived at by the learned Tribunal and have carefully gone through the material available on record. The main question which now arises for consideration in these appeals is that "whether the finding given by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is sustainable or not ?" 12. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the appellants, I have gone through the statements of AW-1 Chetan Ram, who is father of Khema Ram. He was not the eye-witness of occurrence but he has stated that on 17.4.1991 his son Khema Ram died in road accident. He has also stated that his son was 'khalashi' and second driver on truck No.RJC-4377. He has also produced the papers with regard to investigation conducted by the police as regards the report of the concerned accident and from those papers, the statement of AW-1 is corroborated to the extent of accident. 13. AW-2 Girdhari Gar is said to be the eye-witness of occurrence. He has stated that near the 'Jhumpa of Rudu Baba' occurrence took place. He saw the occurrence with his own eyes. He has further stated in his statement that when he reached on the spot, he saw one truck loaded with 'khadi' and other vehicle (though he has stated jeep) came from other side and both the vehicles collided with each other. He has further stated that in the said accident - Girdhari, Khema Ram and one more person died. He has further stated in his statement that when he reached on the spot, he saw one truck loaded with 'khadi' and other vehicle (though he has stated jeep) came from other side and both the vehicles collided with each other. He has further stated that in the said accident - Girdhari, Khema Ram and one more person died. He has stated that he was knowing Girdhari-the driver of one vehicle prior to the incident. He has further stated that just after the accident, Narpat Singh-Tehsildar came on the spot, who took further step in that respect. AW-2 Girdhari Gar though has not stated the numbers of the concern vehicles but he has specifically stated that in the accident three persons died and that is corroborated by other material. Though he has stated one vehicle as 'jeep' instead of 'truck' but merely on asserting this, his total statement cannot be ignored and his presence cannot be held doubtful. Further on not taking steps for reporting the matter to police, his evidence cannot be found un-natural as he has stated that Narpat Singh-Tehsildar came on the spot and he took steps. The relevant part of his statement is quoted as under : " nksuksa xkfM+;k vkil esa Vdjk xbZ FkhA [kM+h ls Hkjh gqbZ tks xkM+h Fkh og jksax lkbM esa Fkh] mlds M~kbZoj dh xyrh ls Vddj gqbZ FkhA xkfM+;ksa ds Vdjkus ij rhu vkneh ejs] ftlesa ,d thi pkyd fxj/kkjh] [ksekjke rFkk ,ds vkSj vkneh ejk ftldk uke ekywe ugha ej x;sA " 14. On the other hand, NAW-1 Prabhu Lal-the owner of the offending vehicle has stated in his statement that his vehicle bearing regn. No.GT-9T-4170 was going from Samdari to Dhorimanna, at that time, vehicle No.RJC-4377 came in high speed. He also admitted that his vehicle was being driven by Inder Singh. He has further stated near 'Rudu Baba Ji Jhonpadi' both the vehicles collided. On the same line, NAW-2 Sarang Ram has stated that on 17.4.1991 he was sitting in vehicle No.GT-9T- 4170, which was going from Samdari to Dhorimanna and near the 'Radu Baba Ki Jhumpi' one truck bearing No.RJC-4377 was coming in high speed and the vehicles collided with each other. On the same line, NAW-2 Sarang Ram has stated that on 17.4.1991 he was sitting in vehicle No.GT-9T- 4170, which was going from Samdari to Dhorimanna and near the 'Radu Baba Ki Jhumpi' one truck bearing No.RJC-4377 was coming in high speed and the vehicles collided with each other. The relevant portion of his statement is quoted as under : " esjh th0ts0 9Vh&4170 xkM+h FkhA 17-04-1991 dks lqcg 7-30 cts ds yxHkx lkapkSj ls /kksjheUuk xkM+h tk jgh FkhA lkeus vkj0ts0lh0 4377 xkM+h rst xfr ls vkbZA gekjh xkM+h dk M~kbZoj bUnjflag FkkA " 15. He has further stated that three persons died in the accident i.e. corroborated by the other material. One more witness, namely, Hari Kishan Motwani has been produced on behalf of the Insurance Co. but he is not the eye-witness of occurrence nor he is related to the witnesses of accident. 16. It is also revealed that report (Exh.1) of the accident was also lodged at Police Station and in that report also this fact has been narrated that there was collision near 'Redu Baba Ki Jhonpadi' and in the said report, particulars/number of the vehicles have also been mentioned. It is also revealed from the record that in that accident, the driver and 'khalashi' of truck No.RJC-4377, namely, Girdhari Ram and Khema died in that accident. The learned Tribunal has not considered and appreciated the material available on record and only on the basis of statement of AW-2 Girdhari Gar, has wrongly concluded issue No.1. The findings in another claim cases are not of importance because of the fact that the present claimants were not the parties to those proceedings. To my mind the finding on issue No.1 is not sustainable. The learned Tribunal has ignored to discuss the other material available on record, therefore, the matter requires re-consideration. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the conclusion arrived on issue No.1, has not decided the question of quantum of compensation etc. 17. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the finding on issue No.1 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back for afresh hearing. Further, it is made clear that if either of the parties requests to produce any additional evidence, the learned Tribunal will consider the same sympathetically and allow the party to produce evidence. 18. 17. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the finding on issue No.1 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back for afresh hearing. Further, it is made clear that if either of the parties requests to produce any additional evidence, the learned Tribunal will consider the same sympathetically and allow the party to produce evidence. 18. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed and the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded back with a direction to the learned Tribunal to conduct afresh hearing on all the issues. Since the matter is being remitted back, therefore, detailed discussion on facts and points involved in the matter is not being made in the interest of justice. The parties are directed to appear before the Motor Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer on 15.5.2008. The learned Tribunal will conclude the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of four months and shall will not be influenced by any observation made herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******