IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that contributory negligence must be evaluated in motor vehicle accident cases, and that Tribunals must consider all relevant evidence to ensure just compensation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr R.G. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate, along with Mr Pranav Kakodkar for the appellant and Mr Amey Kakodkar for respondent no.3.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dtd. 25/2/2021 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing Claim Petition No.10/2017.

3. The Tribunal has held that the claimants failed to establish that the accident in which John Jacob died was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Babaji, the driver of the tipper truck bearing registration no.GA-05-T-6112. Given this finding, the Tribunal did not bother determining the compensation amount the claimants would have otherwise been entitled to. Thus, the Tribunal decided only on the issue of rashness and negligence, but the other issue of the quantum of compensation was not decided.

4. The approach of the Tribunal in not deciding all the issues together is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 591. and Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore V/s. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 342. Despite the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decisions of this Court following such judgments, the Tribunals in several cases only determine the issue of rashness and negligence and not the issue of quantum of compensation.

5. On the issue of rashness and negligence, the Tribunal has mainly relied upon the circumstance that the police authorities did not deem it necessary to file any FIR or launch any prosecution against the truck driver for the accident in which the deceased, John, who was driving a Dio scooter bearing registration no.GA-05-H-9792 died after the two vehicles were involved in the accident. The Tribunal has also relied upon the evidence of Nitin Halarnkar, PSI of the Ponda Police Station (AW3), who deposed that his investigations revealed that the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased, John.

6. Based upon the above two factors coupled with the scene of the accident sketch and the panchanama, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased, John was solely responsible for the accident and that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the truck driver.

7. Mr Ramani argued that the Tribunal, however, failed to give sufficient credence to the evidence of Sanjay Patkar (AW4) and Aleluia Braganza (AW5), the eyewitnesses to the accident. The Tribunal also failed to draw appropriate inference from the circumstance that the truck driver Babaji failed to step into the witness box and deposed to the genesis of the accident in which John died. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the tipper truck is much heavier and bigger than a Dio scooter.

8. Mr Ramani also argued that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting Nitin Halarnkar, PSI (AW3)'s entire evidence. Admittedly, Nitin Halarnkar (AW3) had not witnessed the accident. He also did not disclose the nature of his investigations. He maintained that there were no witnesses at the time of the accident. Sanjay Patkar (AW4) and Aleluia Braganza (AW5) spoke about witnessing the accident. They referred to the number of persons present at the accident site opposite St. Anne's Church. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in basing its conclusion almost entirely on the deposition of Nitin Halarnkar, PSI (AW3).

9. Mr Ramani, without prejudice submitted that the Tribunal should have considered the aspect of contributory negligence. He offered that the Truck driver was equally responsible for the accident, and the compensation should have been ordered, accordingly.

10. Mr Amey Kakodkar learned Counsel for respondent no.3, defended the impugned award on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that the truck driver was not responsible for the accident. He offered that the deceased was driving the scooter rashly and hit the truck's rear tyre in the process of overtaking. Mr Kakodkar submitted that the truck driver could not be he