Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 616 (RAJ)

Rashi v. Jagdish Singh

2012-03-12

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Since both the aforesaid two appeals have arisen out of and pertain to one judgment dated 12th March, 2003, whereby both the claim petitions have been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The background facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on 19th February, 1998, Pradeep Sharma @ Pappu and Narayan Singh @ Bachla along with other companions were coming from Bundi to Baran by a Jeep bearing Registration No. RPM 7621 after attending a meeting. It is alleged that the Jeep was being driven by the driver Jagdish Singh. It is further alleged that the driver of the Jeep drove it rashly and negligently and dashed against a tree, with the result that Jeep capsized resulting into the death of Pradeep Sharma @ Pappu on the spot and registered owner of the Jeep Narayan Singh @ Bachla died on the way to Hospital. Both the appellants filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran and the Judge of the Tribunal, after completion of the trial of the claim petitions dismissed them on the ground that it was not proved that the Jeep was being driven by Jagdish Singh and it was not further proved that the accident took place because of the negligent and rash driving of its driver. Hence, these appeals. 3. None is present for the respondents, hence, heard the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sandeep Mathur canvassed that it was an admitted fact that the vehicle bearing Registration No. RPM 7621 was very much involved in an accident, wherein both Pradeep Sharma @ Pappu and Narayan Singh @ Bachla died. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased Narayan Singh @ Bachla was the registered owner of the Jeep. Learned counsel further contended that the very fact of the Jeep having dashed against a tree and thereafter, the Jeep capsized, itself proves that the vehicle was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the accident took place, no further proof for the said negligence of the driver was required. On account of the findings arrived at on issues no. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the accident took place, no further proof for the said negligence of the driver was required. On account of the findings arrived at on issues no. 1 and 3, the Tribunal did not decide the rest of the issues on merits and solely on the ground of its findings having recorded for these two issues, dismissed the claim petitions. Hence, both the appeals may be remitted to the Tribunal for their adjudication afresh. 5. Having reflected over the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully scanned the impugned judgment, it is noticed that issue no. 3 is found to have been settled by the Tribunal as under:- “Whether non-claimant/Jagdish Singh was driving the Jeep at the time of accident?” 6. The Tribunal having discussed the evidence emerging on record observed that it was not proved from the evidence on record that the vehicle was being driven by Jagdish Singh. Similarly, it was also not proved that the vehicle was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. The finding of the Tribunal per se appears to be perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. Needless to say that if it was not proved that Jagdish Singh was driving the Jeep entailed in accident, he could be absolved from its liability, but merely on this ground that it was not proved that Jagdish Singh was driving the vehicle, claim petitions could not be dismissed. Secondly, it is also not the requirement of Section 165 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act that the claimants must prove the rash and negligent act of the driver. The words “use of vehicle” are being used in both these sections. If any vehicle is found to be used and that vehicle entailed in any accident, involved with the death of, or bodily injured persons, then the application for compensation, arisen out of an accident of the nature of Sub-section (1) of Section 165, can be made by the claimants. The Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage the negligence or the rash driving of the driver of the vehicle entailed in accident to be proved. The mere requirement in respect of accident involved in death of, or bodily injured persons, is the “use of motor vehicle”. The Section 165 of Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage the negligence or the rash driving of the driver of the vehicle entailed in accident to be proved. The mere requirement in respect of accident involved in death of, or bodily injured persons, is the “use of motor vehicle”. The Tribunal is not found to have arrived at the finding that the vehicle bearing Registration No. RPM 7621 was not entailed in the accident. The finding arrived at by the Judge of the Tribunal, is found to be totally perverse and contrary to law, hence, I feel inclined to remit the case to the Tribunal for its adjudication afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, in accordance with law. The Tribunal is also directed to give finding on all issues settled in the instant petitions. 7. For the reasons stated above, both the appeals succeed and the impugned judgment dated 12th March, 2003 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran, stands set aside. The case is remitted to the said Tribunal with the direction that the Tribunal should record its finding on all the issues and decide the claim petition afresh, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26th March, 2012. 9. The record of the Tribunal be immediately sent back.