Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 15.7.2005 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shahpura, Jaipur (in short MACT) in MACT Cases No. 568/2001, 569, 2001, 570/2001, 572/2001 to 585/2001, 587/2001 and 588/2001 (in all 19 cases), they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The facts in brief are that on 12.12.2000 the injured claimants and deceased were traveling in Tractor Trolley and they were going from village Kanwarpura to Shahpura, a Truck bearing No. RJ 32 G 0864 came rashly and negligently hit the Tractor Trolley and accident took place. In the said accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck they received injuries and some persons received fatal injuries. for the wrong committed by the driver of the truck a criminal case No. 268/2000 was registered against him and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the driver of the truck for the offence under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC. The injured claimants and the legal heirs of deceased filed claim petitions before the MACT. After service of notice, the respondents 1 and 2 filed their written statement came with the plea that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor, as such they are not at all liable to pay any compensation and even if there is any liability only the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company in their written statement came with the contention that the accident took place only due to the fact that the driver of the tractor as driving the vehicle on a slope and only due to the fact that on the slope the tractor trolley turned down and the accident took place. It is contended that no accident with the truck No. RJ 32 G 0864 took place and he said truck never remained involved in the said accident. Neither the tractor driver nor the owner of Insurance company were impleaded as party nor the driver of the tractor was having valid license at the time of driving of the tractor and even there is a non-compliance of Section of the Act. Neither the tractor driver nor the owner of Insurance company were impleaded as party nor the driver of the tractor was having valid license at the time of driving of the tractor and even there is a non-compliance of Section of the Act. The Insurance Company has stated that since there is violation of the policy, the claim petitions are likely to be rejected. Since so many persons received injuries in the said accident and some received fatal injuries, as such as many as twenty three claim petitions were filed by different claimants regarding the same accident. the MACT clubbed all the claim petitions and on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as four issues. Issue No.1 was with regard to the fact whether the driver of the vehicle bearing No. RJ 32 G 0864 by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently committed the accident and due to the same Muralidhar, Smt. Nanchi and Ganesh died and others received injuries and other issues were with regard to the fact that whether the respondent No.1 was the driver and was in the employment of the respondent No.2 and during the course of his employment, he caused the accident and another issue was with regard to the compensation. Lastly, the issue framed by the Tribunal was whether on the basis of the preliminary objections and additional pleas, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. During the trial the statement of as many as twenty seven witnesses were recorded whereas in defence the statement of two witnesses viz., Ram Swaroop and Bhagwan Das were recorded by the MACT. Out of twenty seven witnesses produced from the claimants side, all were the eye witnesses except AW-1 Surajmal. During the trial the statement of as many as twenty seven witnesses were recorded whereas in defence the statement of two witnesses viz., Ram Swaroop and Bhagwan Das were recorded by the MACT. Out of twenty seven witnesses produced from the claimants side, all were the eye witnesses except AW-1 Surajmal. After hearing the parties the MACT while deciding issues 1 and 2 rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants on the ground that since Suraj Mal first lodged a first information report at Police Station with some different contents where in the involvement of the alleged truck was not mentioned, as such the contents mentioned in the claim petitions as well as the contents mentioned in the complaint on the basis of which the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the truck were not relied upon by the MACT and MACT decided the claim petitions against the appellants and the same were rejected solely on this count vide judgment dated 15.7.2005. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the MACT in deciding the claim petitions vide common award dated 15.7.2005 committed a serious error of law, ignored the material and evidence available on record, ignored the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the same is against the Evidence Act. the MACT has failed to appreciate this important aspect that except Suraj Mal who was neither present at the place of accident nor was having knowledge of the same, found that the entire story narrated by the claimant is false and baseless. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the statements the injured persons specifically stated the manner in which the accident took place, the involvement of the vehicle with which the accident took place and it is pertinent to note that such statement of eye witnesses as well as injured persons remained uncontroverted rather there cannot be any doubt on their statement. The MACT only on the basis of surmises and conjectures decided he issues 1 and 2 against the claimants. The MACT has failed to appreciate this important aspect that even on the basis of statement of AW-1 Suraj Mal the claim petitions were not likely to be rejected. The MACT only on the basis of surmises and conjectures decided he issues 1 and 2 against the claimants. The MACT has failed to appreciate this important aspect that even on the basis of statement of AW-1 Suraj Mal the claim petitions were not likely to be rejected. AW-1 Suraj Mal gave his explanation in his cross-examination and he clearly stated the fact that the report was not written by him and neither he was aware about the facts mentioned in the report nor he is an eye witness of the incident and he merely signed the report. It is submitted that the MACT has failed to appreciate this important aspect that since just after the accident even if a report was registered by some person who did not remain involved in he accident, the facts narrated in the report are having no much relevance more particularly when the other persons those who are the eye witnesses and injured were stating the facts first before the investigating officer who investigated the entire case and thereafter before the MACT. the MACT has also ignored this important fact that when the subsequent report which was sent to the investigating officer under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was thoroughly investigated by the investigating agency and the investigating agency after thorough investigation found the involvement of the truck in the accident and filed charge sheet against the driver who committed the offence and truly speaking this was only for the investigating officer to conduct investigation of such facts. The MACT has committed jurisdictional error in recording such findings that too on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The leaned counsel has argued that on a perusal of the findings recorded by the MACT will show that the MACT gave more weightage to the report lodged by AW-1 Suraj Mal in comparison to the subsequent report as well as statements of the injured persons and eye witnesses whereas it was obligatory on he part of the MACT to ignore the statement of AW1 who was merely a stranger and neither he was the beneficiary nor a sufferer. Not only the injured and beneficiaries but the other eye witnesses like AW-25 Arjun Lal and AW-26 Bhagwan Sahay have also supported the claim cases and both these eye witnesses clearly stated the fact hat the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck but the MACT merely for the reason that the series number was not disclosed by one witness and the another witness who was not resident of hat place, his presence is doubtful. It is pertinent to note that merely for the reason that the series of the truck was not disclosed in the statement, does not mean that the person is not the eye witness. So far as another witness who was belonging to the other village Shahpura is concerned it was for the respondent Insurance company to establish that at the time of accident he was not present at the spot. The MACT while deciding the claim petitions decided the matter as if the MACT is having personal knowledge about all the facts. It is further submitted by the counsel that without any material evidence available on record and even without any cross-examination of such issue, the MACT wrongly came to this conclusion that the witness was not the eye witness. The MACT has failed to appreciate this important aspect that the owner as well as the driver of the truck admitted the accident and in reply to the notice under Section 133 M.V. Act, the owner of the truck disclosed the fact that the respondent No.1 Pooran was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the MACT though relied upon the statement of the enquiry said to have been conducted by the investigators of the insurance company but completely ignored the fact that the investigation conducted by the police was just and proper rather was a fair investigation and therefore the charge sheet was also filed against the culprit i.e. driver of the truck. The learned counsel has argued that in these circumstances the comments mentioned in the finding that the claimants with the help of persons of their own community falsely involved the truck in the accident. The learned counsel has argued that in these circumstances the comments mentioned in the finding that the claimants with the help of persons of their own community falsely involved the truck in the accident. The MACT has committed an error in ignoring the fact that the defence witnesses were not the eye witnesses rather they were merely the investigators interested in the Insurance Company as they were appointed by the Insurance Company and even otherwise in their statement they merely supported their opinion which was recorded after their investigation. Merely on the basis of such opinion, no conclusion what so ever was likely to be drawn by the MACT. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Mannulal vs. Surendra Pal Singh & Ors. 2001(1) TAC 418 (MP). 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company and the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, have opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the claimants and argued that the common award dated 15.7.2005 passed by the MACT is just and proper based on the basis of the reasonings and material on record. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions and the award passed by the MACT and also gone through the record. 7. It is an admitted fact that Surajmal lodged a report at Police Station, Manoharpur on 12.12.2000 that he and his wife and 30-35 persons ere traveling in tractor and trolley for going to village Sheosinghpura from his village Kanwarpura. At 11 on account of applying gear in the tractor the same overturned and on account of which accident took place and in that accident his wife died and he received injuries. The Police Station Manoharpur registered the report bearing FIR No. 264/2000. At 11 on account of applying gear in the tractor the same overturned and on account of which accident took place and in that accident his wife died and he received injuries. The Police Station Manoharpur registered the report bearing FIR No. 264/2000. The report lodged by Surajmal reads as under : ^^lsok esa] Jheku~ bUpktZ lkgc Fkkuk euksgjiqj fo"k; 5 ,SDlhMsUV gksus ds lEcU/k esa lknj fuosnu gS fd vkt fnukad 12-12-2000 dks esa rFkk esjs ifjokj ds o xkao ds djhc 30-35 vkneh o vksjrsa daojiqj ls L;kflaxiqjk xkWo tk jgs FksA jkLrs esa dq.Mksa ds ikl ?kkVh esa le; djhc 11 cts fnu ds tc ?kkVh ls VªsDVj Vªksyh p<+us yxh rks VªsDVj ds xsj iyVrs le; VªsDVj Vªksyh csd gksdj iyV xbZ] Vªksyh iyVus ls 21-22 vknfe;ksa o vksjrksa ds pksVs yxh gSA rFkk x.ks'k o Jherh uUNh dh eksads ij gh e`R;q gks xbZA VªsDVj o Vªksyh eksds ij iyVs gq, iM+s gq, gSA ftu vknfe;ksa o vksjrksa ds pksVs vkbZ gSA ftudh bykt ds fy, 'kkgiqjk vLirky esa ysdj vk;k gwWA o 7] 8 vknfe;ksa o vksjrksa dks euksgjiqj vLirky esa NksM+ vk;k gwWA fjiksVZ djrk gwW Jheku~th dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh —ik djsA izkFkhZ lwjtey iq= Jh gjykjke tkfr tkV fuoklh daojiqjk** 8. Another report bearing No. 268/2000 was lodged at Manoharpur Police Station on 22.12.2000 as per the complaint filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate Shahpura Distt. Jaipur by Rameshwar son of Sevaram by caste Jat resident of Dhani Javsi village Kanwarpura Tehsil Amer against driver Truck No. RJ 32 G 0864 name not mentioned and Harphool son of Jeevan by caste Jat resident of Kanwarpura Tehsil Amer owner of truck No. RJ 32 G 0864. Jaipur by Rameshwar son of Sevaram by caste Jat resident of Dhani Javsi village Kanwarpura Tehsil Amer against driver Truck No. RJ 32 G 0864 name not mentioned and Harphool son of Jeevan by caste Jat resident of Kanwarpura Tehsil Amer owner of truck No. RJ 32 G 0864. Extracted portion of the report reads as under : ^^;g fd izkFkhZ fnukad 12-12-2000 dks viuh <k.kh rqylhcu ru daojiqjk dks VªsDVj Vªksyh esa vius ifjokj okys dks ysdj ,d fj'rsnkj dh e`R;q ij u[ksn tk jgs Fks djhc lqcg 10-11 cts ijekuUn th rhFkZ LFkku ds tkus okyh lM+d ij rhFkZ LFkku ds lehi igqaps dh ,d Vªd uEcj vkjts 32 th 0804 tks lkeus ls vk jgk Fkk ftlds pkyd us rst xfr o ykijokgh jksax lkbZM esa pykdj VªsDVj Vªksyh dks lkbZM ls VDdj ekjh ftlls Vªksyh myV xbZ bl VDdj ls Vªksyh esa cSBs dbz vknfe;ksa o efgykvksa ds pksVs vkbZ ftuesa eqjyh] x.ks'k o Jherh uUNh dh e`R;q gks xbZA** 9. Surajmal son of Harlaram, who has lodged the report about the accident before Police Station Manoharpur, appeared as a witness PW-1 on 22.3.2002 in his statement before the Court stated as under : ^^esjh vksj vU; vksjrksa ds lkFk f'koflagiwjk esa ,d vkneh dh y[ksn esa tk jgs Fks rks lkeus ls ijekUun th ds dq.Mh ds ikl lkeus ls vk jgs ,d Vªd us VDdj ekjh Fkh ftlds uEcj vkjts 32 th 864 FksA nq?kZVuk Vªd pkyd dh xyrh ls gqbZ Fkh d;ksafd og Vªd dks rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls pyk jgk FkkAmldk csysUl ugha cu ik;k FkkA Vªd okys us VªsDVj Vªksyh ds VDdj ekjh FkhA** In cross-examination he has stated thus : ^^nq?kZVuk dh fjiksVZ eSaus ntZ ugha djokbZ nq?kZVuk ds le; esa ekSds ij ekStwn ugha FkkA chekjh ugha gksus dk izek.k is'k ugha fd;k gS d;ksafd ekaxk gh ugha x;kA Vªd ds uEcj gfj us cryk;s FksA esjh iRuh VªsDVj Vªksyh esa cSBdj tk jgh FkhA esa ijekuUn th ds ;gk x;k gwWA jkLrk igkM+h gS ysfdu vc u;kl jklrk fudy x;k gSA ml jkLrsa esa yEch pksM+h vk tk ldrh gSA jksM+ cuus ls igys NksVh xkfM+;k vk tk ldrh Fkh cM+h ugha vk tk ldrh FkhA ml le; Vªd ugha tk ldrk dsoy thi vkSj VªsDVj tk ldrk Fkka jksM+ cus gq, 2-3 lky gks x;s gksaxsA eSaus fnukad 12-12-2000 dks Fkkus esa fyf[kr fjiksVZ is'k ugha dh FkhA eSaus bl fjiksVZ ij gLrk{kj t:j fd;s Fks ysfdu bldks i<+k ugha FkkA eSaus fy[kh Hkh ugha FkhA** 10. Narangi wife of Murli, who appeared as AD-2 in her cross- examination stated thus : ^^eSa VªsDVj Vªksyh esa cSBdj ugha tk jgh FkhA nq?kZVuk ds le; ekSds ij ugha FkhA** 11. Jhoomali wife of Ganesh, who has appeared as AD-3 in her cross examination stated thus : ^^eSa nq?kZVuk ds oä ekSds ij mi- ugha FkhA** 12. Narangi wife of Murli, who appeared as AD-2 in her cross- examination stated thus : ^^eSa VªsDVj Vªksyh esa cSBdj ugha tk jgh FkhA nq?kZVuk ds le; ekSds ij ugha FkhA** 11. Jhoomali wife of Ganesh, who has appeared as AD-3 in her cross examination stated thus : ^^eSa nq?kZVuk ds oä ekSds ij mi- ugha FkhA** 12. Bhagwani wife of Banshidhar, who has appeared as AD-4 on 22.3.2002 stated thus : ^^Vªksyh ds lkeus ls ,d Vªd us vkdj VDdj ekjh Vªd rsth ls vk jgk Fkk ,oa mlus vkdj tksjnkj VDdj ekjhA gekjk VªsDVj /khjs /khjs py jgk FkkA** In her cross examination she stated thus : ^^mlesa gfj cSBk gqvk FkkA gfj Vªksyh esa dgka ij cSBk Fkk irk ugha gS D;ksafd esa ?kwa?kV esa FkhA esjs ikl ml le; pkj ikap tus cSBs FksA eaxyh] lq.kh] NksVh oxSjg cSBh FkhA ge vkil esa ckrs dj jgs FksA ;g lgh gS fd lkjh vksjrs ?kwa?kV dj j[kh Fkh ysfdu cM+h vksjrksa us ?kwa?kV ugha dj j[kk FkkA esjk eqag ihNs dh rjQ uoyiqjk dh rjQ FkkA esjk eqag ihNs dh rjQ uoyiqjk dh rjQ Fkk Vªd lkeus ls vk jgk FkkA Vªd dk dyj irk ugha gS Vªd dks vkrk fn[kk FkkA Vªd dkSu pyk jgk Fkk irk ugha gSA ew>s rks rks'k gh ugh Fkk rhljs fnu gks'k vk;k FkkA** 13. Mangli wife of Banwarilal who has appeared as a witness AD 5 in her statement stated thus : ^^ge VªsDVj Vªksyh esa cSBdj tk jgs Fks lkeus ls ,d Vªd vk jgk Fkk tks dkQh rsth ls vk jgk FkkA ftldks mldk pkyd rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj gekjs VªsDVj Vªksyh dks tksjnkj VDdj ekjh ftlls rhu vkneh ekSds ij ej x;s ,oa vknfe;ksa ds pksVs vkbZ FkhA** In her cross examination she stated thus : ^^lkeus ls Vªd dks Hkkxrk gqvk vkrk gqvk ns[kk FkkA mldks VDdj ekjrs gq, ugha ns[kk** ^^ftlesa ge tk jgs Fks og VªsDVj fdldk Fkk irk ugha gS mldks dkSu pyk jgk Fkk irk ugha gSA ekSdk ij p<+kbZ gS ;g dguk lgh gS fd pkyd us p<+kbZ esa xs;j cnyus ls nq?kZVuk gqbZ gks rks eSa ughd dg ldrhA VªsDVj dkSuls jax dk Fkk ugha crk ldrh mlds uEcj Hkh ugha crk ldrhA Vªksyh dk dyj Hkh irk ughaA** 14. Chhoti wife of Seduram appeared as AD 6 in her statement recorded on 22.3.2002 she stated thus : ^^gekjs lkeus ld ,d Vªd vk gk Fkk tks rsth ls vkdj gekjh Vªksyh ds VDdj ekjha ge /khjs /khjs tk jgs Fks nq?kZVuk Vªd pkyd dh xyrh ls gqbZ FkhA ekSds ij gh rhu vkneh [kRe gks x;s Fks mlesa ,d vkSjr FkhA In her cross examination she stated thus : ^^Vªksyh dks dkSu pyk jgk Fkk irk ugha gS esa gfj dks tkurh gwWA lwjtey iq= gjyk tkV dks tkurh gwWA ml fnu gjh Vªksyh esa Fkk ;k ugh irk ugha gS D;ksafd eSa rks ?kqa?kV esa FkhA gjyk dk Nksjk lwjtey ml fnu Vªksyh esa FkkA** 15. Almost all the witnesses appeared before the court stated that they did not know the number of the truck, which hit the tractor from the opposite side. 16. Rameshwar son of Sheoram, who filed the complaint before the Court in his statement recorded before the court stated thus : ^^gekjs ifjokj esa tks ejs mudk nkg laLdkj dj 2-3 fnu ckn esa Fkkus esa vk;sA Fkkus okyksa dks dgk fd gekjh fjiksVZ xyr dj nh] lgh fjiksVZ djks mlus ugha fd;k fQj geus dksVZ dsl dj fn;kA In her cross examination he stated thus : ^^;g dguk xyr gS VªsDVj dks fdlh Vªd ls VDdj ugha gksA Vªd ds uEcj eq>s irk ugha gS fQj dgk fd 864 FksA dsoy 864 gh tkurk gwW Vªd gkQ ckM+h dk Fkk Vªd dks dkSu pyk jgk Fkk irk ugha gS Vªd [kkyh gh FkkA Vªd ekfyd dk irk ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd nq?kZVuk dh mlh le; fjiksVZ dj nh FkhA ;g dguk xyr gs fd ckn esa geus >wBk bLrxklk fd;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gs fd iqfyl ls feydj geus VªsDVj dks myVuk xyr crk;k gksA Vªd us VªsDVj ds ck;s rjQ VDdj nh FkhA VªsDVj dks dksbZ uqdlku ugha gqvkA vkxs ls cEij VqVk gS iqfyl esa esjs c;ku gq;s gSA 17. The insurance company filed affidavits of Ram Swaroop Pareek and Bhagwan Das Kaushik, who investigated the matter on the request of the New India insurance Company. The insurance company filed affidavits of Ram Swaroop Pareek and Bhagwan Das Kaushik, who investigated the matter on the request of the New India insurance Company. In the affidavit Shri Ram Swaroop has stated thus : ^^;g fd mä izdj.k dh dfFkr +nq?kZVuk ds ckcr~ is'k ;kfpdkvksa ds ckcr~ dEiuh dh vksj ls 1 yxk;r 26 eqdíeksa ds ckcr~ eq>s vuqla/kku djus o fjiksVZ is'k djus ckcr~ dEiuh us eqdjZj fd;k Fkk mä izdj.kksa ds ckcr~ esus vuqla/kku djds tkap fjiksVZ vkj-,l-bZ-ch- 2000-2001@630 fnukad 5-9-2001 dks is'k dh gS tks mä vuqla/kku fjiksVZ ,DthfcV Mh@1 gS vkSj oks esus dEiuh esa is'k dh gSA fjiksVZ ds gj ist ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS mä izdj.k ds ckcr~ ;g fjiksVZ lgh ,oa lR; gS vkSj lkjs rF; mä izdj.k ds blesa vafdr gSA He was cross examined by the counsel for the claimants. In his cross examination he stated thus: ^^eq>s dEiuh esa vUos'kd dk dke djrs gq, daiuh esa djhcu 15 lky gks x;sA vUos'ku dh Qh'k daiuh gekjh esgur ,oa Dyse ds fglkc ls is'k djrh gSA esa Lo; gh vUos'ku rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij djrs gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vUos'k.k fjiksVZ esus dk;kZy; esa cSBdj rS;kj dh gksA 18. Bhagwan Das Kaushik also filed his affidavit and stated that the contents of the report Ex.P2 are true and correct, bearing his signatures A to B. 19. He was cross examined by the counsel for the claimants. In his cross examination he stated thus : ^^es iqfyl esa bUlisDVj ds in ij dk;Zjr Fkk vc esa lsokfuo`r gks x;k gwW esa U;w bf.M;k b-d- esa bUosLVhxsVj gwWA fdlh ljdkjh foHkkx us eq>s tkap ds vkns'k ugha fn;s chek daiuh ds vkns'k ij gh tkap dh xbZA tks tkap iqfyl Fkkuk euksgjiqjk us dh gS mu vf/kdkfj;ksa ls esus tkap ugha dh gSA eSus O;fäxr tkap dh gS tks is'k dh gSA** 20. In the report Bhagwan Das stated thus : ^^ekyhd Vªd o ihfM+r i{k nksuksa daojiqjk ds jgus okys gSA blfy, nwljh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj eqdíek ua- 268@2000 dh vkil esa rky esy feyk dj Dyse mBkus dh xjt ls dh xbZ gS nksuksa gh i{k dkse ds tkV gS pkyd Vªd Hkh dkse dk tkV gS xokg Jh ckywjke xqtZj fuoklh ys[kj Lora= xokg gS us Hkh VªsDVj Vªksyh iyV tkus ls ?kVuk dkfjr gksuk crk;k gSA 21. In the report Ex.D.1, R.S. Pareek, stated thus : ^^mijksä rF;ksa ls ,oa iqfyl vuqla/kku ls mijksä of.kZr ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ls ;g Li"V gS fd fx;j iyVrs le; VªsDVj Vªksyh p<+kbZ ls ihNs f[kldh vkSj Vªksyh iyV xbZ vkSj mlds ifj.kkeLo:i ;g nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZA nq?kZVuk esa vusd O;fä;ksa ds pksVs vkbZ ,oa e`R;q Hkh gqbZA dkuwu Kkrkvksa us dkuwu ds tkuus okysa O;fä;ksa] dkuwu dk ikyu djus okys O;fä;ksa us ;g ns[kk fd VªsDVj dk dksbZ chek ugha gS] vkSj bl izdkj e`rdksa ds vkfJrksa dks ,oa ?kk;yksa dks chek dEiuh dh rjQ ls dksbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ugha fnykbZ tk ldrhA rRi'pkr~ dkuwu ds tkuus okys dkuwu dk ikyu djus okys O;fä;ksa us ,d vkijkf/kd "kM+;U= jpdj flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV 'kkgiqjk esa >wBs rF;ksa dks n'kkZrs gq, fnukad 16-12-2000 dks jkes'oj tkV] fuoklh daojiqjk ls izkFkZuk i= fnyk;k fd fnukad 12-12-2000 dks Vªd uEcj vkjts 32 th 0864 tks lkeus ls vk jgk Fkk ftlds pkyd us rstxfr o ykijokgh ls wrong side esa pykdj VªsDVj Vªkyh dks lkbZM ls VDdj ekjh] ftlls Vªkyh myV xbZA Fkkuk euksgjiqj fjiksVZ ntZ ugha dh tk jgh FkhA izkjafHkd iqfyl vuqla/kku ,oa mä ifjokn ls ;g Li"V gS fd mä jkes'oj bu rF;ksa dks Hkyh izdkj tkurk Fkk fd Fkkuk euksgjiql ij VªsDVj pkyd ds fo:) ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ gks pqdh gS ijUrq VªsDVj dk chek u gksus ds ifj.kkeLo:i vkijkf/kd "kM;a= dj mä ifjokj Vªd dks mä ?kVuk esa >wBk Qalkus ds fy, ;g ifjokn bl mís'; ls fn;k rkfd Vªd dk chek gS vkSj chek dEiuh ls Dyse izkIr fd;k tk;sA bl "kM+;a= esa dkuwu ds Kkrk] dkuwu dk ikyu djus okys ,oa vU; O;fä 'kjhd gS vkSj bl "kM;a= ds ifj.kkeLo:i vUrr% iqfyl us Vªd pkyd ds fo:) pktZ'khV U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dhA ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 264@2000 fnukad 12-12-2000 Fkkuk euksgjiqj ,oa ?kVukLFky ds ekufp= ,oa Hkkjlk/kd inkf/kdkjh euksgjiql }kjk fy;s x;s xokgksa ds dFku vkfn ls ;g Li"V izekf.kr gS fd nq?kZVuk VªsDVj ds fx;j iyVus ls ihNs <ykl esa gksus ij lUrqyu fcxM tkus ds dkj.k ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZA ;g rF; jktLFkku if=dk ftldh izfr i=koyh ij layXu gS mlls Hkh Li"V gSA ijUrq VªDVj dk dksbZ chek ugha gS] dkuwu ds Kkrk ,oa dkuwu ds ikyu djus okys O;fä;ksa us vkijkf/kd "kM;a= dj chek dEiuh ls xyr rjhds ls Dyse izkIr djus dh n`f"V ls mijksä of.kZr Vªd dks nq?kZVuk esa >wBk crk;k gS vkSj ;g vijk/k /kkjk 120ch] 420@467 vkbZ-ih-lh- dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS vr% ;g mfpr gksxk fd lh-ch-vkbZ- vFkok iqfyl ds mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dk bl izdj.k esa rRdky dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ds fy;s fuosnu fd;k tk; rkfd >ws rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdkdrkZ ,oa "kM;a=drkZ cgqr cMh ek=k esa jktdh; jkf'k chek dEiuh ls ugh mBk ldsA ,oa Hkfo"; esa Hkh bl rjg ds "kM;a=drkZ dks iqujko`fr djus dk volj u fey ldsA** 22. The MACT on the issue No. 1 and 2 gave the following findings: ;fn FkksM+h nsj ds fy;s izkFkhZx.k dh dgkuh dks lR; ekuk tkos fd nq?kZVuk Vªd la- vkj-ts- 32 th 0864 }kjk dkfjr dh xbZ rFkk VDdj bruh tksjnkj Fkh fd mlds QyLo:i Vªksyh myV xbZ rks fuf'pr :i ls Vªd ds dkj.k dksbZ fu'kku vkus pkfg;s Fks] bl lEcU/k esa Vªd dh QnZ tCrh izn'kZ 4 rFkk esdsfudy eqvk;uk fjiksVZ izn'kZ 5 dk voyksdu egRoiw.kZ gSA bu nksuksa ds vuqlkj tCr'kqnk Vªd esa nq?kZVuk ds dksbZ fu'kku ugha ik;s x;s] fdlh Hkh ekeys esa lk{kh >waB cksy ldrs gS] ifjfLFkfr;ksa dHkh >waB ugha cksyrhA ;fn okLro esa nq?kZVuk blh Vªd }kjk dkfjr dh tkrh rks fuf'pr :i ls mldh ckMh ij dksbZ fu'kku vko';d :i ls ik;s tkrs] tks bl ekeys esa miyc/k ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZx.k dk ekeyk ;gh dHkh Hkh ugha jgk fd nq?kZVuk dkfjr djus ds mijkar Vªd pkyd ;k Vªd ekfyd us Vªd dks Bhd djok fy;k Fkk] uk gh dksbZ ,slh ckr vUos"k.k ds nkSjku izdV gqbZ] fQj Hkh vk'p;Z dh ckr gS fd iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa us izkFkhZx.k ls lkt djds u dsoy ,d gh ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa nks eqdíesa esa vkjksi i= Hkh U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dj fn;kA bl ekeys esa ,d fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr ;g izdV gqbZ fd iwjh vUos"k.k i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ds mijkUr Hkh dgha ij Hkh nq?kZVuk esas fyIr VªsDVj dk uEcj miyC/k ugha gS] rcdh ;g ,d vko';d rRo Fkk rFkk ml uEcj dks Nqikdj j[kuk bl ckr dks bafxr djrk gS okLro esa Vªd dks lkt djds gh Qalk;k x;k gS rFkk bl ekeys esa cpko i{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr lk{khx.k Jh jkeLo:i ikjhd ,u-,-M-1 rFkk Hkxoku nkl ,u-,-M-2 dk dFku egRoiw.kZ gS] mUgksaus vius }kjk ekeys dh tkap djuk rFkk mlds vuqlkj Vªd }kjk nq?kZVuk dkfjr ugha gksus dh ckr vius dFku esa Lohdkj dh gSA budh fjiksVZ izn'kZ Mh-1 o Mh-2 i=koyh ij miyC/k gS] ftudk Hkh esaus voyksdu fd;kA Jh jkeLo:i ikjhd us viuh fjiksVZ ds rhljs ist ds ikapos isjk esa ;g ckr vafdr dh gS fd lwjtey us vius /kkjk 161 na-iz-la- ds c;ku esa Hkh bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd os vius ifjokj ds lkFk rFkk xkao ds 30-35 vknfe;ksa ds lkFk daojiqjk ls ';kflagiqjkxkao esa ,d u[ksn esa tk jgs Fks] blls Hkh bl ckr dks cy feyrk gS fd ifjoknh lwjtey nq?kZVuk ds le; VªsDVj Vªksyh ij lokj Fkk rFkk mlds }kjk fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ xbZ FkhA blh izdkj ist la- 4 esa vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh us isjk la-3 esa ;g fy[kk gS fd jktLFkku if=dk fnukad 13-12-2000 esa bl nq?kZVuk ds lEcU/k esa rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr lekpkj izdkf'kr gq, gS] ftlesa Li"V fy[kk gqvk gS fd ftys ds euksgjiqjk Fkkuk bykds ds dq.Mk xkao ds ikl lkseokj dks VªsDVj Vªkyh iyV tkus ls mlesa lokj ,d efgyk lfgr 3 tuksa dh e`R;q gks xbZ rFkk 20 tsu ?kk;y gks x;sA ;fn okLro esa ;g nq?kZVuk Vªd dh VDdj ls dkfjr gqbZ gksrh rks bl lekpkj i= esa Vªd }kjk VDdj ekjus dh ckr Hkh Nih gksrh] ysfdu ,slh dksbZ ckr lekpkj i= esa ugh NihA blh izdkj ist la-4 ds iSjk la- 7 esa vUos"k.kdrkZ us ;g fy[kk gS fd VªsDVj ekfyd ls lEidZ fd;k x;k rks mlus c;ku nsus dh badkjh dh o fyf[kr esa dqN Hkh ugha fn;k vkSj crk;k fd mlds VªsDVj dk dksbZ chek ugha gS bl izdkj ;kfpdkdrkZ Hkh iw.kZr;k dkuwu Kkrkvksa ds cgdkos esa gSA esjs fouez er esa ekeys ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj djus ds ckn vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dh ;gk fjiksVZ fdlh Hkh izdkj ls vuqfpr ugha gS] D;ksafd fdlh Hkh izFke lwpuk] xokg ds c;ku] vkjksi i= ;k vU; nLrkost esa nq?kZVuk esa fyIr VªsDVj dk uEcj vafdr ugha gS] uk gh mlds okeh ,oa pkyd dk uke ntZ gSA izkFkhZx.k dh rjQ ls izLrqr fd;s x;s lk{khx.k ls chek dEiuh dh rjQ ls bl lEcU/k esa izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku lq>ko fn;k x;k rFkk VªsDVj pkyd ,oa ekfyd ds lEcU/k esa tkudkjh izkIr djus dk iz;kl Hkh fd;k x;k] vyx vyx ckr lkeus vkbZA dqN lk{khx.k us pkyd dk uke txnh'k crk;k rFkk ifjoknh lwjtet us ekfyd dk uke jkes'oj crk;k] ysfdu uEcj fdlh Hkh lk{kh us vius c;ku esa ugha crk;sA blls ;g Li"V gS fd mUgksaus tku cw>dj VªsDVj ds uEcj Nqik fy;s rFkk iqfyl us Hkh bl uEcj dks Nqik fy;kA bl ekeys esa lcls egRoiw.kZ ckr ;g jgh fd izn'kZ 7 ifjokn ds vuqlkj Vªd }kjk Vªd lkbZM esa Vªksyh esa ekjh xbZ Fkh] ysfdu bl lEcU/k esa tc izkFkhZx.k dh rjQ ls izLrqr fd;s x;s lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa ij fopkj djrs gS] rks ;g ckr lkeus vkbZ fd ;g VDdj okLro esa lkbZM ls ugha gksdj lkeus ls gqbZ FkhA bl rF; dks gfj ,-M-7 us Lohdkj fd;k gS] lqUnjh ,-M-10 us Hkh Li"V :i ls ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lkeus ls Vªd us VDj ekjh Fkh] lk{kh egknso ,-M- 15 us Hkh viuh izfrj{kk ds nksjku lkeus ls Vªd us VDdj ekjh Fkh] c;ku fd;k gSa lk{kh ukFkw ,-M-18 us Hkh viuh izfrj{kk esa ;gh ckr dgh gS fd Vªd us lkeus ls vkdj VDdj ekjh FkhA lk{kh uUnjke ,-M-19 us dgk gS fd VªsDVj ds Vªd us VDdj yxkbZ Fkh] tks batu ds yxh Fkh] tcfd batu ij dksbZ VwV QwV gqbZ gks] ,slk u rks ekeyk gS u U;k;ky; ds le{k lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA blls Hkh blh ckr dks cy feyrk gS fd okLro esa Vªd dks dkuwuh lykg ds vk/kkj ij ckn esa iqfyl ls lkt djds bl ekeys esa fyIr gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gs] ,slh lwjr esa ;g ikrk gwW fd izkFkhZx.k Vªd la- vkjts 32 th 0864 ds pkyd }kjk rst xfr o mrkoysiu ls okgu pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr djus ds rF; dks lkfcr ugha dj ik;sA 23. I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT on issues 1 and 2 and the relevant documents and the evidence reproduced above. I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT on issues No.l and 2 that the claimants have not been able to prove that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Truck RJ 32 G 0864. The findings of the MACT on issues 1 and 2 cannot be said to be perverse. The arguments in this respect that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck No. RJ 32 G 0864, is devoid of merit and hence rejected. Admittedly the truck was not involved in the accident. In the complaint filed by Rameshwar son of Sevaram before the Judicial Magistrate Shahpura the name of the truck owner has been mentioned by him Harphool son of Jeevan by caste Jat resident of Kanwarpura Tehsil Amer. The claimants belonged to Kanwarpura village and it cannot be presumed that the truck by which the accident took place is not in their knowledge at the time of accident and they have not been able to make a mention of the fact that the accident took place with the Truck and the number of the truck is not known to them. The complainant Rameshwar has not even mentioned the name of the driver in the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the story of dragging the truck in the accident was cooked up at some level and even in that process police also helped the claimants. In the notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicles Act, issued by the SHO Police Station on 18.1.2001 the name of the owner Harphool son of Jeevan by caste Jat aged bout 26 resident of Kanwarpura Police Station Chandwasi, Owner Truck No. RJ 32 G 0864 was mentioned. Thus the findings arrived at by the MACT cannot be said to be perverse in relation to issues 1 and 2 in the common award dated 15.7.2005. Thus the findings arrived at by the MACT cannot be said to be perverse in relation to issues 1 and 2 in the common award dated 15.7.2005. On the basis of the findings on issues 1 and 2 the MACT rightly held that the claimants in the claim petitions are not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondents 1 and 2 and from the Insurance Company, ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the instant matter is not applicable the facts of this case. 24. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, all the 19 misc. appeals filed by the claimants fail and are hereby rejected. The common award dated 15.7.2005 passed by MACT, Shahpura (Jaipur) in claim petitions Nos.568/2001, 569/2001, 570/2001, 572/2001, 573/2001, 574/2001, 575/2001, 576/2001, 577/2001, 578/2001, 579/2001, 580/2001, 581/2001, 582/2001, 583/2001, 584/2001, 585/2001, 587/2001 and 588/2001 (in all 19 cases), stands confirmed. The interim orders if any passed by this court in the misc. appeals stand vacated. The stay applications if any filed along with the misc. appeals also stand rejected. The insurance company is free to recover the amount if paid under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the claimants as per the order passed by the MACT Shahpura. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.