Hon'ble SHARMA, J. - (1.) SINCE all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 9.3.2004 passed in Claim Petitions No. 275/2000, 227/2000, 276/2000, 278/2000 and 280/2000 by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge No.9 Jaipur City, Jaipur (in short the MACT) they are being disposed by this common judgment.
(2.) THE facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. The facts in brief are that the claimants filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries received by Ashok Kumar and Smt. Kiran and for the death of Kumari Divya, Tolaram and Shyam Lal. The said claim petitions were later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.9 Jaipur City, Jaipur where the same were registered as claim petitions Nos. 28/2004, 29/2004, 30/2004, 31/2004 and 32/2004. It was alleged in the claim petitions that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of Matadeen, who was driving bus o. RJ 18 P 0733 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short R.S.R.T.C.) when all the victims were traveling in the Tata Mobile No. HR 21 3643 which was being driven by Shyam Lal, resulting in death of Tola Ram, Shyam Lal, and Kumari Divya and injuries to Ashok Kumar and Smt. Kiran. The FIR to the incident was lodged at Police Station, Harmada bearing FIR No. 351/1999. The R.S.R.T.C. filed reply to the claim petitions before the Tribunal denying the averments made by the claimants. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the Tata Mobile driver. It was argued by the R.S.R.T.C. that in these circumstances the R.S.R.T.C. cannot be held liable for making the payment of any compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues. The claimants and the R.S.R.T.C. produced evidence. After considering the claim petitions, written statements and the evidence produced by the parties, the MACT allowed the claim petitions and directed the appellant R.S.R.T.C. to pay the compensation. Against the common award dated 9.3.2004, the R.S.R.T.C. preferred four appeals for quashing and setting the award of the M.A.C.T. and the claimants filed two appeals, as mentioned above for enhancing the claims. The learned counsel for the appellant R.S.R.T.C. has contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that the accident in question occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of R.S.R.T.C. There is ample evidence on record that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the Tata Mobile Driver, when he was trying to overtake a truck in a very hurry manner and did not care to see the bus which was coming from the opposite direction. It was argued that in these circumstances the driver of the R.S.R.T.C. cannot be held guilty. The learned counsel has contended that the driver has tried his best to avoid the accident but the fact is that the Tata Mobile driver came out of sudden in front of the bus and as such there was no time left with the driver to avoid the accident and in such circumstances, the contributory negligence of the Tata Mobile driver cannot be ruled out. The driver of bus has been charge sheeted by the Police, cannot be said to be the sole ground for holding the driver negligent, because it is settled law that the finding of the police authorities, is not binding upon the Tribunal and the Tribunal is supposed to give its own reasons for holding the driver negligent. The driver, owner and insurer of the Tata Mobile have not been impleaded as party to the claim petition and as such the claim petitions deserve to be dismissed for nonjoinder of the necessary parties. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. prayed that the appeals may be allowed and the award may be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, appearing for the injured claimants and the claimants who have filed claim petitions on account of death of Kumari Divya, Tolaram and Shyam Lal, contended that the findings recorded by the MACT in relation to issue No.1 holding the driver of the R.S.R.T.C. bus negligent driving and rejecting the plea of the R.S.R.T.C. that the accident took place on account of negligence of driver of the Tata Mobile, is just and proper. The learned counsel contended that while computing the compensation on account of death of Tolaram, the MACT has not computed it in right perspective and the same is to be enhanced and for the loss of vehicle the claimants claimed Rs. 1,70,000/- but the MACT only granted Rs. 80,000/- this amount is to be enhanced. In relation to damages of the vehicle the learned counsel for the claimant placed reliance on Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Virendrakumar Singh (1986 ACJ 132 = 1985 RLW 264). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in my view the MACT has not committed any error in giving findings on the issues. The issues framed by the MACT, reads as under : JUDGEMENT_1776_RAJLW2_2011Image1.jpg
(3.) THE MACT in relation to issue No.l held that the evidence of Matadeen bus driver is not trustworthy. THE police filed charge-sheet against the driver of the bus for the negligence driving on account of which the accident took place. THE driver has not stated at any stage that the driver of the Tata Mobile overtake the Truck on account of which the accident took place. THE MACT also rejected the claim of the R.S.R.T.C. for contributory negligence on account of the fact at no stage they took any such plea, and hence, this plea of contributory negligence was rejected by the MACT. THE MACT in relation to issue No.l held as under : JUDGEMENT_1776_RAJLW2_2011Image2.jpg JUDGEMENT_1776_RAJLW2_2011Image3.jpg The MACT gave reasons for not accepting the plea of the driver for negligence driving of the Tata Mobile driver and further rejecting the pla of R.S.R.T.C. for contributory negligence. 1 am in agreement with the reasons given by the MACT in deciding the issue No.l in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. The issue No.2 related about the proof of driver of the bus that he was in employment of the R.S.R.T.C. and was driving the bus at the time of accident. It is an admitted fact that the R.S.R.T.C. gave notice to driver Matadeen for negligently driving the bus, thus it is proved that Matadeen was driving the bus at the time of accident and he was in employment of the R.S.R.T.C. Thus the issue regarding employing Matadeen as driver is proved and this issue was also decided in favour of the claimants and against the non- claimants. The learned counsel for the MACT has not been able to point out any discrepancy in relation to deciding issue No.2 against the MACT. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT regarding issue No.2. ;