Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2246 (RAJ)

Hari Singh v. Pangrudin

2012-12-03

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal filed by the appellants-claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Mahendra Pal Singh, arises out of the judgment and award dated 30th September, 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Addl. District, Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MAC No. 118/95, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition of the claimants. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 23.1.95 at about 11.00 PM, the deceased Mahendra Pal Singh was going towards Ajmer from Kishangarh driving his truck bearing Registration No. HR 35-3991. When he reached near Tolamala area, another truck bearing Registration No. RJ-2G-1817 came from the opposite site. According to the appellants-claimants, due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver of the said truck, it dashed with the deceased's truck, as a result thereof, the truck of the deceased turned turtle. The deceased, therefore sustained fatal injuries and he succummed to the said injuries. The appellants-claimants, therefore, had filed their claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the respondents, who are the driver, owner and Insurance Company respectively of the offending truck. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the said petition on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove that the driver of the truck No. RJ-2G-1817 was negligent in driving his truck and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the owner and the Insurance Company of the said truck. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal. 3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Hanuman Choudhary for the appellants that the deceased was not negligent, but the respondent No.1, who was driving the offending truck, had dashed with the truck of the deceased, which resulted into the accident and death of the deceased. Placing reliance on Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), Mr. Choudhary submitted that the appellants are entitled to the compensation atleast under the head of 'No Fault Liability' to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-, more particularly when there is no dispute about the involvement of the offending vehicle. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Kartar Singh for Mr. Choudhary submitted that the appellants are entitled to the compensation atleast under the head of 'No Fault Liability' to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-, more particularly when there is no dispute about the involvement of the offending vehicle. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Kartar Singh for Mr. Pritam Bijlani for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company submitted that when the deceased himself was found to be negligent in driving his truck, no liability could be fastened on the owner or the Insurance Company of the truck in question. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the claim petition filed by the appellants- claimants was contested by the respondents-opponents by filing their respective replies. It appears that none of the respondents had disputed involvement of the truck bearing No. RJ- 2G-1817, driven by the respondent No.1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No.3- Insurance Company. The only contention raised before the Tribunal was that the deceased himself was negligent in driving his truck bearing No. HR 35-3991. It is true that from the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced before the Tribunal, it appears that the deceased himself was driving his truck rashly and negligently. The respondent No.1, Pangrudin had also examined himself before the Tribunal who had stated that he having seen that the deceased was driving his truck rashly and negligently, he had stopped his truck on one site, however the deceased came on the wrong side and collided with his truck, which resulted into the accident and the truck of the deceased turned turtle. The Tribunal having rightly appreciated the evidence on record found that the deceased himself was negligent in driving his truck. However, it appears that the Tribunal has not considered the provisions contained in Section 140 of the said Act, whereunder the claimants would be entitled to the compensation to the fixed sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the death of the deceased, without proving the negligence on the part of the driver or the owner of the concerned vehicle. Since the involvement of the vehicle in question has not been disputed, it is required to be held that the appellants- claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the death of the deceased, without proving the negligence on the part of the driver or the owner of the concerned vehicle. Since the involvement of the vehicle in question has not been disputed, it is required to be held that the appellants- claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on the principle of 'No Fault Liability' under Section 140 of the said Act. In that view of the matter the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. 6. The appellants would be entitled to receive the compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment from the respondents. The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******