S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) AS the questions involved in these six appeals, before me are common, they were heard together. I consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment. The facts leading to these appeals are identical except relating to quantum of compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'the tribunal') determined the claims arising out of the same accident by different orders dt. November 15, 1972. The applicants are the respondents in all these appeals. Hereinafter the claimants - respondents will be referred as the applicants, facts first.
(2.) JEEP DK 7141 was carrying Rajvi Bidmalsingh, Meghasingh, Gadhsingh, Hamid, Jagpalsingh and Sarupsingh from Sriganganagar towards Hanumangarh on January 21, 1970. Bus RSJ 1796 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the R. S. R. T. C) was carrying Satyagrahies released from Bharatpur and was coming from Hanumangarh towards Ganganagar. Bus RSJ 1796, at the relevant time, was driven by Devkinandan, who was in the employment of the R. S. R. T. C. A collision is said to have taken place between the bus and the JEEP at about 8 a. m. on January 21, 1970 at a distance of about 3 or 4 furlongs from Pakka Saharan on Hanumangarh-Ganganagar road near Dhani Paliwali. The bus collided with the jeep on account of the gross negligence of the bus driver Deokinandan. According to the applicants, it was being driven at a very high speed even though there was fog The applicants have averred that the bus came to the wrong side and collided with the aforesaid jeep coming on its right side. As a result of the collision, all the occupants of the jeep were killed Sarup Singh is said to have died at the hospital and rest five died on the spot. The case of the applicants is that the jeep was being driven at a moderate speed towards left side of the road. The foot brekes of the bus were defective. It had no wipers. The wind screen of the bus was misty and wet with fog and thereby causing invisibility from inside the bus. The bus had no fog light. The front side of the bus, it is alleged, had almost gone over the jeep, which resulted in crushing its occupants. The bonnet, hood and front portion of the jeep were crushed and the body of the jeep was damaged. The appellants-claimants, who are legal, representatives of the deceased occupants, filed separate claims out of which these appeals, as stated above, have been filed. It was prayed in each of the claims that the amounts claimed by the claimants may be awarded against the R. S. R. T. C. The claim was contested by the R. S. R. T. C. & also its driver Deokinandan. They submitted separate replies. The defence taken by them are common. M/s Calcutta Insurance Ltd. Calcutta (for short 'the Company') also submitted reply to the claims for compensation. The defence of R. S. R. T. C, while controversing the submissions made in the claims for compensation is that the driver Deokinandan was driving the bus at a very moderate speed with due care and caution on the extreme left side of the road. It is said that then the driver Deokinandan saw the aforesaid jeep coming at a very high speed towards the bus, he took the bus to the extreme left so much so that both the wheels of the left side of the bus were on Kuchha road and only right hand side wheels were on the Pukka Road. He left more than 3/4 on the Pukka Road on his right side for the coming jeep to pass, but as the jeep could not be controlled by its driver, he dashed it against the bus on the side of the Driver This resulted in great impact. The right front of the wheel got burst and the right front side of the bus was badly damaged. On account of this impact and burst of front wheel the bus was dragged for a little distance on its right side. The accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep's driver which resulted in casualties. A plea was also taken that when the jeep is insured, the claims are maintainable only against the insurer of the jeep. The quantum of the compensation claimed by the claimants was also denied. The Insurance Company raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the claims for award of compensation viz. that it does not disclose any cause of action against it, that the Policy No. ND/2g991/70 covering Jeep No. RJK 7141 did not cover any passenger risk and that the petitioners can under no circumstances make any claim against the Company. Another objection that was taken was that the Jeep was not used in accordance with the "limitation as to use" clause of the policy nor was it being driven by duly licensed driver as provided therein. The following issues were framed in each of the claims, out of which the present appeals have arisen- (1) Whether Shri Deoki Nandan was driving Bus No. RSL 1796 rashly and negligently at the time of the accident? (2) If so, whether jeep car No. RJK 7141 collided with the bus due to rashness and negligence of Shri Deoki Nandan? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation and if so, to what extent and from whom ? (4) whether the claim is not maintainable against non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 (R. S. R. T. C. and its Driver)? (5) Relief. Parties led their evidence. The Tribunal, by its order dated November 15, 1972 held as under: - (1) that having regard to the site and the evidence, it is proved that the Driver of the bus was rash and negligent and, therefore, was responsible for the accident, and (2) that the applicants are entitled for compensation. The R. S. R. T. C. has filed the appeals as aforesaid questioning the correctness and validity of the award of compensation. I have heard Mr. R. N. Munshi counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. L. Jain and Mr. C. C. Jain, for the applicants-respondents and Mr. B. L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
(3.) MR. R. N. Munshi, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings on issues No. 1 and 2 in all these appeals. It may be recalled that issues No. 1 and 2 deal with rash and negligent driving of Shri Deokinandan, driver, at the time of accident and the collision of the bus with the jeep which was the result of that rash and negligent driving. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the statements of P. W. 2 Bhagirath, P. W. 3 Krishan Gopal P. W. 6 Balvindra Singh, P. W. 7 Amarsingh and P. W. 8 Rameshwarlal and D. W. 1 Deokinandan. D. W. 2 Murlidhar and D. W. 3 Govindsingh. He further referred to Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 (site plan and inspection memo respectively ). The Tribunal has carefully considered the aforesaid evidence. The burden of the aforesaid two issues was on the applicants. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur i. e. the things speak for themselves, is not applicable to the case. The case of the applicants is that the accident took place on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the Driver Deokinandan. On the other hand, the defence taken is that the accident has taken place on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. It is the case of collision of two vehicles coming from opposite direction. It is not in dispute that the road is 9 ft. and 6" wide. The Tribunal has considered position of the two vehicles. After accident ASI, prepared the site-plan (Ex. 4) and the site inspection memo (Ex. 5 ). The site inspection memo (Ex. 5) contains the position and condition of the two vehicles soon after their accident. The bus was found standing at its right side. The rear right double tyre of the bus was at a distance of 13 ft. from the road edge and the left double tyre was at a distance of 6 ft. The wheel of the jeep along with its rim was found struck or entangled in between the differential and the right rear wheel of the bus. The stud of the tub of the jeep were found broken. The right front wheel of the bus had bursted. The bus bumper on its right side near the engine had dents. The front right small and big lights of the bus were completely broken. The front wire gauze of the bus had also fallen down. The handle of the bumper from the front side had dents. There was a dent in the right side of the radiator. There was no wiper blade fitted in the bus, though wiper machine was there inside. There was 3 ft. long scratch mark on the right side of the body of the bus whereby the colour of the body was found removed. The brake of the bus was found deep inside. The jeep was found in a damaged condition on the right side of the bus. Its bumper was found lying at a distance of 10 ft. 6 inches and the jeep was found lying at a distance of 20 ft. 6 inches from the road edge on its left side. The jeep was facing towards the road. The right front portion of the jeep was found beneath the sand and the right bumper was completely dented. The body of the jeep as well as its right front portion got completely smashed The seat on the right side was broken. There was blood on the ground by the side of the driver's seat near the jeep and near the blood, one bottle and one helf bottle were lying. One big battery was also lying beneath the body of the jeep and the handle of the jeep was lying at a distance of 4 ft. 6 inches ahead of the jeep There is Kuchha upto the road level on both the sides. There were no signs of application of brakes on the pucca road. The wiper blade was not found there due to breaking of the wind screen. The front right portion as well as the body of the jeep were completely smashed and as a result of accident the front portion of the jeep had gone in the sand and front right wheel got entangled in between the differential and the right rear wheel of the bus. The damage to the jeep was much more than the bus. so also, there was more damage to the right part of the jeep in comparison to the right front of the bus. It, is, therefore, clear that after the dash, the right wheel of the bus got bursted and the jeep passed through causing 3 ft. long scratch on the right side of the body of the bus. It is also clear from the site inspection memo that at the time of collision the two vehicles were not driven in the centre of the right road, else there would have been collision smashing or completely damaging the complete front portion of both the vehicles. ;