Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—These four appeals have been filed by the claimants, against a common judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar Camp Bhadra, deciding six claim petitions. Appeal No. 153 arises out of claim petition No. 120/93 which was filed for personal injuries received by the claimant Chandu, Appeal No. 154 arises out of claim petition No. 118 which was also filed for personal injury sustained by the claimant Nima. Then, Appeal No. 155 arises out of claim No. 123/93 which was filed by the legal representatives of Smt. Badami on account of death of Smt. Badami, and Appeal No. 156 arises out of claim petition No. 124 which was filed by legal representatives of Raji Ram on account of death of Raji Ram. 2. The necessary facts of the case are, that all the victims were travelling in goods vehicle No. HR 20/B/357. According to the claim petitions when this vehicle reached near Patwa Bus Stand, the driver tried to overtake another goods vehicle RJ 13/G-674, by driving it rashly and negligently, and in that process it dashed against truck No. RJ 13/1148, coming from the opposite side, as a result of which two persons died as above, and other persons were injured. 3. Reply was filed on behalf of owner and driver, contending that the victims were not travelling in the said goods vehicle No. 357, and they have nothing to do with the accident. It was also pleaded that his vehicle was hired by Badami and Raji Ram deceased, for carrying on some dowry goods, and in the process when the vehicle was going, vehicle No. RJ 13 G-674 tried to overtake vehicle from the left hand side i.e. wrong side, and in that process severely hit the truck No. 357, pushing it on the wrong side, and in that process truck No. 357 hit against vehicle No. 1148, coming from opposite direction. It was pleaded that driver tried his best to avert the accident unsuccessfully. 4. The insurer also filed reply, contending that it has not been pleaded in the claim petition, as to in what capacity occupants were travelling in the vehicle, but it appears that they were travelling as passengers, while the vehicle was not authorised to carry passengers. Various other grounds have been taken, and the liability of the insurer was denied. 5. The insurer also filed reply, contending that it has not been pleaded in the claim petition, as to in what capacity occupants were travelling in the vehicle, but it appears that they were travelling as passengers, while the vehicle was not authorised to carry passengers. Various other grounds have been taken, and the liability of the insurer was denied. 5. The claim petition has been filed only against the driver, owner and insurer of vehicle No. 357. 6. The learned Tribunal framed five issues. Issue No. 1 related to the question about negligence of the driver of truck No. 357. Then, issue No. 2 was as to whether the defendant No. 1 was in employment of the defendant No. 2. Then, issue No. 3 was about quantum of compensation. Issue No. 4 was about effect of pleadings taken in additional pleas in the claim petitions, and issue No. 5 was about relief. 7. During trial claimants examined seven witnesses, and produced various documents and tendered them in evidence, including site plan Ex. 4, and site inspection note Ex. 5. No evidence was led on the side of the defendants, so much so that even defendant No.1 driver, did not choose to appear in the witness box. 8. Learned trial Court after simply recapitulating resume of the evidence produced on the side of the claimants, concluded that the evidence does not establish or indicate negligence on the part of the defendant No.1. It found, that it is not clear from the evidence that the driver of truck No. 357 negligently drove it, and hit against the vehicle No. 1148, coming from the opposite direction resulting into victims receiving injuries and dying. Issue No. 2 was decided against the defendants. Then, issue No. 3 was decided against the claimants solely on the basis of findings arrived at on issue No.1. Then, issue No. 4 was also decided against the claimants, on the ground, that it is not clarified as to in what capacity the victims were travelling in the goods vehicle. In the result all the claim petitions had been dismissed. Aggrieved of it only four appeals have been filed. Be that as it may. 9. Then, issue No. 4 was also decided against the claimants, on the ground, that it is not clarified as to in what capacity the victims were travelling in the goods vehicle. In the result all the claim petitions had been dismissed. Aggrieved of it only four appeals have been filed. Be that as it may. 9. Arguing the appeal it was contended, that the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is not sustainable, as it is out come of improper appreciation of evidence, and not properly looking into the material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the insurer, on the other hand, supported the findings. 11. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the record. 12. I may straightway first of all come to the record. Coming to the claim petition, a look at the record shows, that the claim petition is not signed by the claimants, inasmuch as it is at the bottom in the last page only the mere thumb mark of the claimant/s are there, otherwise all pages of the claim petition do not bear any signature or thumb mark of the claimant. It is a different story, that according to Rule 10.2 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 the claim petition may be presented to the Claim Tribunal, and shall be signed by the applicant. 13. It is again a different story, that it has become more or less a rampant practice, practically in all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, that the claim petitions are presented unsigned by the claimants. It is high time that the Tribunals should grasp the provisions of Rule 10.2, and start insisting upon the claim petitions to be received only when they are signed by the claimants. 14. The grave consequences flowing there-from are that for the purpose of examining the aspect of variance between pleading and proof, or for holding the claimant to their pleading, the Court is handicapped in absence of signature of the claimant. This is apart from the fact that at times the defendant may be taken by surprise, by the claimants shifting their stand from time to time. This is apart from the fact that at times the defendant may be taken by surprise, by the claimants shifting their stand from time to time. In that view of the matter, I am not in a position to take or consider the pleading taken by the claimant in this regard, as to how the accident occurred, and what are the facts pleaded constituting negligence of the driver of the delinquent vehicle, though brief description is contained in para-10. So far as the reply is concerned, the reply filed on behalf of owner and driver also stands on no better footing than the claim petition, as the reply too has not been signed, and only bears the thumb marks at the bottom of last page, and the other pages of the pleadings do not contain any signatures of the defendant. In such circumstances, in order to examine the evidence, the stand taken in written statement also cannot be taken to be the stand pleaded by the defendant. 15. It is well nigh possible that in some cases, the defendants may not be even aware as to what pleadings have been taken in the Court on their behalf. May be, that it may not be the case here, but the possibilities are not ruled out about some blank papers bearing thumb mark of the defendant being available, could be used for manufacturing the written statement in the claim petition, and allowing the noose to be put in neck of owner and driver. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal should grasp the requirements and should stop the practice of receiving pleadings of either side unless they are signed on every paper by the party concerned. 16. In view of the above, my predicament is that I cannot hold party to the purported pleading taken before the learned Tribunal. Obviously, then the case rests on the evidence on record. In this regard again, coming to the two documents Ex. 4 and Ex. 5, the things make startling revelation of remiss attitude of the public servants, inasmuch as Ex. 4, is the site plan, on which normally implicit reliance is placed by the Tribunal, to arrive at a decision one way or the other, and then Ex. 5 is the site inspection note. A look at Ex. 4 and Ex. 5, the things make startling revelation of remiss attitude of the public servants, inasmuch as Ex. 4, is the site plan, on which normally implicit reliance is placed by the Tribunal, to arrive at a decision one way or the other, and then Ex. 5 is the site inspection note. A look at Ex. 4 shows, that at point A truck No. TATA 407 is shown to be stationary in an accidented condition. At the mark B is shown to be available a truck, and it is mentioned that at the time of accident its one rear tyre was on the road rest entire truck was off the road in the sand, and it is opined that the truck driver was driving on the correct side, rather took the truck off the road, and the driver of TATA-407 went on the wrong side, and hit against the truck. It is strange, that the Investigating Officer has not chosen to mention the registration number of two vehicles, even though they are mentioned in the first information report. More so because during evidence the witnesses have described both the vehicles as TATA-407. Then, a look at Ex. 4 shows that the two vehicles are standing at a distance from each other, and facing each other, and if the site plan is taken on the face value it cannot be said that any accident at all occurred. It is not shown that after the impact either of the vehicle was thrown at the place where it was found, no marks of application of brake, or other marks that might have available on road as marks of accident have been noticed by the I.O. Negligent attitude is writ large also from the fact that he was conscious of the fact that in site inspection note he is supposed to mention the total width of the road and a line has been written in Ex.5 about the width of the road on the site, but then space for mentioning figure of width have been left blank. In view of the sequence of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, when a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal receives the copy of police paper as public documents and proceeds with the presumption u/s 114 about regularity of the official acts, such type of omissions can be described to b e nothing less than M ISCONDUCT and not mere gross negligent act on the part of the I.O. and do tend to play havoc on either side i.e. claimant or the owner of the vehicle. Photostat copy of the judgment, Ex.4 and Ex.5 be sent to the Inspector General of Police and to Hon'ble Home Minister to appropriately examine the matter and take a very strong disciplinary action against the delinquent and report the outcome to this Court. 17. In this sequence I now come to the oral evidence, led on the side of the claimants. A.W.1 Shishpal in his examination in chief deposed that he along with his wife deceased Badami were travelling from Bakariyawali to Dabri in TATA-407 which met with an accident near Patwa when the driver of TATA-407 was driving rashly and negligently. One four wheeler was going which was attempted to be overtaken by their driver, in which process it hit that four wheeler, then a big truck came from opposite direction and their vehicle hit against that, rather banged into it, in which accident his wife died, and so on. In cross examination he has stated, that in the first instance the vehicle coming from the opposite direction hit the vehicle that was moving ahead of their vehicle. Then, the vehicle moving ahead hit their vehicle. Then, he has stated that in the first instance both TATA-407 dashed against each other, and this was on account of negligence of their driver. He has also deposed that after hitting, their vehicle went towards right side, and hit against other 407. Then, the driver left the steering. He has also stated that after both 407 hitting against each other, the second incident occurred, which comprised of hitting against a stationary truck, while the first incident comprised of two TATA-407 hitting against each other, while moving together. 18. Then, the other witness is Adaram A.W.2. According to him he was also travelling in the truck in question along with other victims. 18. Then, the other witness is Adaram A.W.2. According to him he was also travelling in the truck in question along with other victims. According to him as soon as they moved ahead of Patwa, they tried to overtake the four wheeler, and at that time another truck came from the opposite direction, and accident occurred. In cross examination he has deposed that one more 407 was moving ahead of their 407, and that their truck overtook that another truck. 19. Then, A.W. 3 Chandu is also one of the occupant, and one of the victims being appellant in Appeal No. 153. He has deposed, that their truck met with an accident near Patwa when their vehicle tried to cross another vehicle, and in that process accident occurred. According to him it appears that accident occurred on account of negligence of their driver. Then in cross examination he has deposed, that one more vehicle was moving ahead of their vehicle, and both these vehicles in the first instance hit each other, then their vehicle hit against a truck coming from opposite direction. However, he is not aware, as to whether the truck moving ahead of them went away or not. 20. Then, A.W.4 Indraj is also an occupant, and has deposed that their truck 407 tried to overtake another vehicle, at that time a truck came from opposite direction, and in that process their truck hit against the truck coming from opposite direction. In cross examination he has stated, that it is wrong to say that their truck dashed against the truck which it was overtaking, and thereafter hit against the truck coming from opposite direction. Another witness A.W.4 Shravani has also been examined which need not detain me, as she does not claim to be there at the time of accident, or to be in the vehicle. 21. Then A.W.5 is Nima, another victim and appellant in appeal No.154, she has deposed that when they reached near Patwa, a truck was coming from opposite direction, and their TATA 407 dashed against that truck coming from opposite direction. 21. Then A.W.5 is Nima, another victim and appellant in appeal No.154, she has deposed that when they reached near Patwa, a truck was coming from opposite direction, and their TATA 407 dashed against that truck coming from opposite direction. In cross-examination she has deposed to be not aware as to whether any TATA 407 was proceeding ahead of their TATA 407 or not, she also does not know as to whether before the accident their TATA 407 hit against another TATA 407 or not, or as to how that accident occurred, though she claims to be sitting in the front cabin, where four persons including driver were sitting, but then claims, that she had veiled and came to know only after accident occurred. 22. Then the last witness is A.W.6 Mahendra. He has deposed, that when they reached near Patwa, their truck was moving at a fast speed and their truck hit against the truck coming from opposite direction, which accident occurred on account of negligence of defendant No.1. In cross-examination he is categoric to the effect that, that another TATA 407 was not moving ahead of their vehicle, and that their vehicle did not hit another TATA 407, before the accident. He claims to be sitting in the hind side, and came to know only after happening of the accident. 23. As noticed above, no evidence has been led on the side of any of the defendants. 24. This is the entire material available on record. 25. In my view, of course the evidence led on the side of the claimants is contradictory, in the sense that the witnesses are not at one even on the question as to whether there were two accidents or one, i.e. in the first instance, the vehicle in which they were travelling hit against another vehicle, which it was trying to overtake, and then hit against the vehicle coming from opposite direction, or there was only one accident comprising of their vehicle hitting against a vehicle coming from opposite direction. Likewise they are not one even on the aspect as to how the accident occurred. The site plan, as noticed above also, in my view, cannot be relied upon, for the purpose of believing the things as it purports to contain. 26. Likewise they are not one even on the aspect as to how the accident occurred. The site plan, as noticed above also, in my view, cannot be relied upon, for the purpose of believing the things as it purports to contain. 26. As a matter of fact and law, in my view, on the face of evidence produced by the parties, it was an imminently fit case, where the learned Tribunal should have been conscious of the provisions of Rule 10.14, Rule 10.15, so also Rule 10.16 and should have made a sincere and earnest endeavour to arrive at correct conclusion, one way or the other, instead of resting contented with noting contradictory set of evidence led on the side of the claimants, and to conclude about failure on the part of the claimants to prove negligence. All said and done, it is a severe accident, wherein two persons have died, and number of persons are said to have been injured, and the Court is asked by the claimant to believe, that it was head on collision. With this, the claim has been filed impleading owner, driver and insurer of one vehicle, being No.HR20-B-357 only, and now all the claimants go high and dry. 27. In my view, in view of the above state of affairs, finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 can possible be not sustained. 28. It could be, that I could have undertaken exercise to arrive at the finding one way or the other on issue No.1, but then, looking to the state of scanty material, as noticed above, that too would not have been a safe conclusion to be arrived at. 29. In that view of the matter, I simply stand advised to set aside the impugned judgment and award, and remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal, for trying out the case afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the facts found above, deficiency noticed above, and the observations made above. 30. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal, for trying out the case afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the facts found above, deficiency noticed above, and the observations made above. 31. 30. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal, for trying out the case afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the facts found above, deficiency noticed above, and the observations made above. 31. Since the accident occurred way back in the year 1993, a long period of more than 16 years has already rolled by, it is also directed, that the learned Tribunal shall take up the matter on utmost priority, and decide the case expeditiously. Parties present shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 30.9.2009. Copy of the judgment be circulated to all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the State.