VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) This Civil Misc. Appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles act has been filed against judgment and award dated 24.04.2001 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulabpura (Bhilwara) in Civil Misc. Case No.246/2000 (Smt Samta Devi v. RSRTC and others), whereby the respondent-claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.9,14,000/-, payable by the present appellant Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-claimants filed a claim petition under sec.163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 {herein after 'the MV Act '} whereby, inter alia, it was alleged that on 06.05.1997 on Devli-Kekri public road, at about 12 Noon, near borders of village Karela Sita Ram (deceased) was travelling in his Tata Mobile Car bearing No.RJ06-C-2444 from Devli to Kekri. It was alleged that the deceased himself was driver of the car and he was driving his car with care and caution, in controlled speed in his side of the road. When the car reached within boundaries of village Karela near Bada Talab, a bus of the appellant-RSRTC bearing No.RJ01-P-1340, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent way with excessive speed and the bus driver drove his bus in wrong side and dashed against car of the deceased. In that accident, the car was damaged and Sita Ram sustained severe injuries on his body and due to the injuries sustained by him, he died at the spot of the accident.
(3.) The respondent-claimants filed a claim petition and claimed Rs.21 Lacs in total as compensation under various heads. The appellant filed a reply to the claim petition in which all the averments made in the claim petition were denied and it was submitted that the income of deceased Sita Ram as alleged in the claim petition is imaginary and speculative in nature. It was also submitted that the driver of the bus drove his bus on his right side and deceased Sita Ram drove his car in wrong side and dashed against the bus, hence, the bus driver was not responsible and Sita Ram himself was responsible for the accident in question. Therefore, the appellant is not responsible to pay any compensation for alleged damages claimed by respondent- claimants and in case the respondent-claimants are entitled for any compensation, they may claim the same from insurance company with whom their Tata Mobile car was insured. It was further submitted that the insurance company of said Tata Mobile car is a necessary party and without impleading the necessary party, the claim petition is liable to be rejected. In the alternative, it was submitted that if the Tribunal upon perusal of evidence comes to conclusion that the appellant is also liable for payment of any compensation then the amount of compensation be apportioned as per amount of contribution to the negligence in causing the accident by deceased Sita Ram as well as the driver of the bus of appellant. ;