Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present two appeals arising out of same accident, which took place on 05.07.1994 at 03.30 PM when the appellant/claimant Rampal Singh (In CMA No. 344/1998) driving his motorcycle number RSZ -9031, met with an accident with Truck coming from opposite side, namely, DL -1 -G/8207 on Beawar -Sojat Road, near bridge over Raipur river. The deceased, Prabhulal was sitting on the motorcycle as pillion rider and he died on the spot at the age of 23 years in the said accident. Both the Rampal Singh and Prabhulal, were doing the work of laborers at Krishi Puaj Mandi.
(2.) THE learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat, District Pali, held that it is a case of contributory negligent driving of motorcycle by Rampal Singh and also found that he was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident and, therefore, while rejecting the claim petition filed by appellant - Rampal Singh for the injuries suffered by him, also found that the legal representatives of deceased Prabhu Lal, namely, his parents, Smt. Panchi Devi and Sh. Kishanlal, also would recover compensation determined by Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 2,59,920/ - only from the owner of the motorcycle, namely, Rampal Singh and not from the Insurance Company of the insured Truck since the driver of motorcycle, viz. Rampal Singh, was not having the valid licence and, therefore, was solely was responsible for the said accident in question. The relevant findings the learned Tribunal in the judgment and award are quoted herein below for ready reference: - - Mr. M.S. Soni, appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that it is a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence, and therefore, the claimants viz parents of decease Prabhu Lal, could proceed against any of the vehicle owners i.e. motorcycle or the offending truck and, thus, the claim awarded by the learned Tribunal could not be directed to recovered only from the owner of the motorcycle while exonerating the Insurance Company of the insured truck. He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh & Ors. reported in : 2008 ACJ 1834 and has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the site map, and Mr. Soni submitted that the said site map would clearly reveal that the motorcycle was being driven on the left hand side on the curve of the road, whereas the Truck in question coming from the opposite side, went on right side and hit the motorcycle from the front causing injuries to Rampal Singh, and death of pillion rider, Prabhu Lal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also refuted the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that accident took place in the middle of the road and he submitted that it was on the left hand side of the road. He also submitted that merely not possessing the valid licence by the driver of the motorcycle, namely, Rampal Singh, might be an offence on his part, but that would not per se lead to a finding of his contributory negligence as regards the said accident. Therefore, for the appeal filed by Rampal Singh, whose claim petition was rejected by the learned Tribunal, Mr. Soni urged that even claim of the injured Rampal Singh deserves to be granted by this Court or in the alternative the matter may be remanded to the learned Tribunal for determination of the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 1 has also found that Driver of Truck was also negligent, and the said finding of his contributory negligence has not been challenged by the Insurance Company.;