P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Appellant - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') to challenge judgment and award dated 18.11.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur in Claim Case No. 51/94. By the judgment and award impugned, learned Tribunal has partly allowed claim of the respondents-claimants under Section 166 of the Act and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- under different heads. Learned Tribunal has apportioned equal contributory negligence of the Corporation vehicle and the other vehicle involved in accident, i.e. truck No. RNQ7945 and consequently, fastened liability on the Corporation to pay compensation in part while partly fastening liability on the owner, driver and insurer of aforesaid truck.
(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.03.1994, deceased Arun Kumar an employee in Indian Railways as T.T.E., was travelling in Corporation Bus No. RJ14/P- 1745 from Jodhpur for Nagaur. When the bus reached beyond village Khinvsar, it collided with truck No. RNQ7945. As per version of the respondents-claimants, the drivers of both the vehicles were driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently and that resulted in the accident. Due to accident, deceased-Arun Kumar suffered injuries on his head and other vital parts and therefore, was taken to M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur where eventually he succumbed to injuries on 06.04.1994. In order to quantify the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/-under different heads, it is pleaded by respondents-claimants that at the time of his death deceased was serving as T.T.E. in Indian Railways and was drawing salary of Rs.3,000/- per mensem with allowance of Rs.500/-. In the claim petition, besides appellant-Corporation, its driver was also arrayed as non-applicant. That apart, the driver, owner and insurer of truck No.RNQ 7945 were also arrayed as non-applicants.
(3.) The claim petition is contested by non-applicants including the appellant-Corporation. Respondent No.6-Insurance Company, in its return, admitted that truck was insured with it but categorically denied that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The appellant-Corporation and its driver in their return pleaded that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. It is also averred in the reply that due to accident, Corporation has suffered property damage of Rs. 41,258/- and police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the truck driver.;