- (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 27th July, 2005 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant claimants against the respondents.
(2.) HAVING considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the impugned award, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimants-appellants observing that neither the name of AW/2 Aadesh Giri was found to have been mentioned in the list of the passengers sitting in the Jeep nor he was found to have submitted any injury report with regard to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. The learned Tribunal also observed that the Report was lodged by Vivek Giri who was the nephew of the deceased Urmila Devi. In the said report negligence of the Jeep driver was not found to have been mentioned. The learned Tribunal also noticed that the co-passengers sitting in the Jeep along with deceased Urmila Devi were not put to examination. Had the co-passengers been put to an examination, the fact of negligence of the Jeep driver could have come on record. Further the Investigating Officer of the case submitted the Final Report on account of accident been caused by an unknown vehicle. Had there been a negligence of the Jeep driver, a charge-sheet would have been filed against him. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition merely on the ground that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved. He further contended that the Tribunal considered the discrepancies having emerged in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the accident and on this count also did not find the accident proved on account of the negligence of the driver of Jeep No. RJ 14 C -3- 9441 and thus, dismissed the claim petition. Learned counsel took me through some judgments of the Apex Court and canvassed that the claimants are not expected to prove the negligence of the driver in its stricto-senso. Even if the factum of negligence or accident is disputed and the use of the vehicle in an accident is proved, the dependents of the deceased or the injured claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation. Learned counsel has cited the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Parmeshwari Versus Amir Chand and others reported in 2011 (2) TAC 733 (SC); Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Premlata Shukla & Others reported in 2008 RAR 238 (SC); and Bimla Devi & Others Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 (2) TAC 693 (SC) in support thereof. E Converso, Mr. Kartar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has defended the impugned judgment and award and stated the same to be just and proper. He further contended that the dependents were required to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the impugned award warrants no intervention. Having perused the afore-stated judgments rendered by Apex Court, it is revealed that the claimants are neither required nor expected to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is also not expected to be applied in the case of accidents. Even if the factum of negligence is disputed and the use of the vehicle in an accident is found entailed as envisaged by Section 165 as also 166 of the M.V. Act, the dependents, despite there being no negligence on the part of the driver, are entitled to get the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal is found not to have discussed all these aspects in the light of the judgment of Apex Court, hence I deem just and proper to remit the case to the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur for deciding the case afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 27th July, 2005 is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur for adjudicating the claim petition afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties in accordance with law. The Tribunal is also directed to decide the claim petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order.
(3.) BOTH the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Tribunal on 5th March, 2012. Registry to send the record back immediately.;