JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS misc. appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 17. 12. 1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 111/1991 whereby while rejecting an application for compensation filed by the claimant appellants, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of no fault liability in favour of claimant appellants and against the non claimant-respondent No. 2 Ram Kishan.
(2.) THE claimant appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein it was stated that Prabhu Lal, non-claimant-respondent No. 1 was driver of the Truck No. RJR-7875. THE deceased Dhana Lal was in employment on the non claimant respondent No. 2, owner of the said truck. It was also stated that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of vehicle an accident took place, wherein Dhana Lal, died, who was travelling in the Truck. It was also pleaded that Dhana Lal was 25 years of age and was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. THE claimant appellants claimed a total amount of compensation of Rs. 12,83,000/ -. The non claimant Nos. 1 and 2 driver and owner filed their separate written reply, wherein they denied the fact relating to the accident and submitted that claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. It was also stated that deceased was in employment of non claimant-respondent No. 2. Therefore, he should have filed an application under the provisions of Workman Compensation Act, 1923. It was stated by non claimant No. 2 owner of the vehicle that the truck was insured with the non claimant No. 3, insurance company. The non claimant No. 3 insurance company also filed its separate written reply to the claim application, wherein it was admitted that the truck was insured with it. However, no objections were taken that the driver of the vehicle was not holding any valid driving licence at the time of accident and such there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded that an application for compensation has been filed with conspiracy in between the claimants and the non claimant No. 2. The tribunal framed five issues and examined applicants witnesses namely; AW-1 Panthu Lal, AW-2 Bajrangi Bai and AW-3 Chhagan Lal. The non claimants examined NAW-1 Prabhu Lal and NAW- 2 Ram Kishan. The insurance company, non claimant No. 3 did not produce any evidence oral or documentary. The tribunal vide its judgment/award dated 17. 12. 1993 decided issue No. 1 against the claimants and in favour of the non claimants and held that on the basis of evidence produced by claimants, the negligent driving of non claimant No. 1 driver of vehicle is not proved. So far as issued No. 2 is concerned. The tribunal held that claimants are entitled to get only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on the basis of no fault liability from the non claimant No. 2, owner of the vehicle. Issues Nos. 3 and 4 were not pressed by the insurance company. Issue No. 5 was also not pressed by the learned counsel for the non claimant No. 3, insurance company. In the result, learned tribunal dismissed the claim application against the non claimant No. 1 and 3, driver and insurance company, but allowed claim application against the non claimant No. 2 Ram Kishan, owner of the vehicle and passed an award of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.
(3.) BEING aggrieved with the above judgment, the claimant appellants have preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned award as well as record of the tribunal. Learned counsel for the claimant appellants contended that tribunal has committed an illegality in deciding the issue No. 1 against appellants. There was sufficient evidence available on record to prove issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of appellants. He has referred the statement of AW-3 Chhagan Lal, who has stated that the deceased Dhana Lal died in accident and he lodged the report in this regard, which is Ex. 1 in which it has specifically been mentioned that on 31. 5. 1991 the deceased Dhana Lal was going in Truck No. RJR 7875 and due to negligence of truck driver, the truck hit the tree and accident took place wherein Dhana Lal died. The police investigated the matter. Site plan was prepared, which is also available on record as Ex. 3. Charge-sheet Ex. 2 under Section 304-A IPC was filed against the non claimant No. 1 Prabhu Lal, driver of truck. The post mortem report Ex-4 was also filed in the case. Ex. 5 is the copy of the notice given by Investigating Officer to the owner of truck Ram Kishan. The mechanical report is Ex. 6, which shows that truck met with in an accident. The above evidence clearly shows that Dhana Lal, died in an accident, which took place because of rash and negligent driving of the non claimant No. 1 Prabhu Lal. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the learned tribunal in respect of issue No. 1 is not correct. In fact the learned tribunal has not even referred and considered the above referred documents, which were available in respect of issue No. 1 is liable to be reversed. The issue No. 1 is decided in favour of claimants and it is held that Dhanna Lal died in an accident which took place because of negligent driving of the non-applicant No. 1 Prabhu Lal. ;