IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that in cases of motor accidents, the concept of composite negligence and the liability of wrongdoers play a crucial role in determining the party responsible for paying compensation.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Both the appeals have been jointly heard, since they arise out of a common judgment in MACP Nos. 188 of 2004 and 190 of 2004 delivered on 08.04.2008 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Amreli.

2. Though served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. The Insurance Company challenges the judgment inter-alia on the ground that the judgment and award is contrary to law and erroneous, and when the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant insured driver was not negligent for causing the accident in question, and has not been found as a tortfeasor, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the compensation, and merely considering claimants being passengers travelling in the insured rickshaw, the Tribunal has laid down joint and several liability of all the opponents.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat submitted that the Tribunal has very categorically answered the issue no. 1, which was raised, as to whether claimants prove that the drivers of passenger Rickshaw No. GJ-14-T-2337 and Bullet Motorcycle No. GJ-4-AA-5050 involved in the accident, were rash and negligent in driving their respective motor vehicles. Referring to the findings, Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that answering the issue in the finding, the Tribunal has observed that the driver of Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 is rash and negligent in driving the said jeep. Mr. Shelat stated that on raised issue, the Tribunal, on considerable evaluation of evidence, has given the finding. Mr. Shelat submitted that in MACP No. 188 of 2004 and in MACP No. 190 of 2004, the issue was laid down on the claimants to prove that the drivers of passenger Rickshaw No. GJ-14-T-2337 and Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 involved in the accident were rash and negligent in driving the respective motor vehicles.

4.1 Advocate Mr. Shelat submits that in both the matters on raising the specific issue, the Tribunal has observed in the finding that the driver of Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 was rash and negligent in driving the said jeep.

4.2 Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that in the accident, one of the claimant had also shown the involvement of a Bullet Motorcycle No. GJ-4-AA-5050, as three vehicles were involved. The specific observation was attributing the negligence to the Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857. Mr. Shelat submitted that in spite of the finding and having observed that the driver of jeep had not stepped into the witness box to revert the submission of the claimants considering the FIR, had come to an opinion that the accident had occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the utility jeep; in spite of that in the operative part of the order, the opponents were made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

4.3 Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that once in a finding the negligence have been concluded of one of the vehicle driver, then there could not be any liability to be paid by the driver/owner of the other vehicle, and, thereby no vicarious liability can be extended to the Insurance Company, thus, submitted that since it is not a case of any composite negligence, the appeal has been raised for modification of the order.

5. The facts were noted by the Tribunal that the deceased Ramjibhai Dayabhai Pethani of MACP No. 188 of 2004 and injured Vithalbhai Bhimjibhai Radadia were travelling in passenger Rickshaw No. GJ-14-T-2337. When the rickshaw was on Badhada Road near Omgiri Ashram, the driver of the Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857 came driving the jeep from the rear side of the rickshaw in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed, endangering the human life, dashed the jeep at the rear side of the rickshaw. As a result, the rickshaw fell down into the ditch, causing death and injury, as referred above.

6. While dealing with the evidence, the Tribunal has noted that the FIR produced at Exh.56 shows that it was lodged against the driver of Utility Jeep No. GJ-14-T-3857. The driver of the said j