Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 15.7.2005 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shahpura, Jaipur (in short MACT) in MACT Cases No. 568/2001, 569, 2001, 570/2001, 572/2001 to 585/2001, 587/2001 and 588/2001 (in all 19 cases), they are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. The facts in brief are that on 12.12.2000 the injured claimants and deceased were traveling in Tractor Trolley and they were going from village Kanwarpura to Shahpura, a Truck bearing No. RJ 32 G 0864 came rashly and negligently hit the Tractor Trolley and accident took place. In the said accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck they received injuries and some persons received fatal injuries. for the wrong committed by the driver of the truck a criminal case No. 268/2000 was registered against him and after investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the driver of the truck for the offence under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC. The injured claimants and the legal heirs of deceased filed claim petitions before the MACT. After service of notice, the respondents 1 and 2 filed their written statement came with the plea that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor, as such they are not at all liable to pay any compensation and even if there is any liability only the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company in their written statement came with the contention that the accident took place only due to the fact that the driver of the tractor as driving the vehicle on a slope and only due to the fact that on the slope the tractor trolley turned down and the accident took place. It is contended that no accident with the truck No. RJ 32 G 0864 took place and he said truck never remained involved in the said accident. Neither the tractor driver nor the owner of Insurance company were impleaded as party nor the driver of the tractor was having valid license at the time of driving of the tractor and even there is a non-compliance of Section of the Act. The Insurance Company has stated that since there is violation of the policy, the claim petitions are likely to be rejected. Since so many persons received injuries in the said accident and some received fatal injuries, as such as many as twenty three claim petitions were filed by different claimants regarding the same accident. the MACT clubbed all the claim petitions and on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as four issues. Issue No.1 was with regard to the fact whether the driver of the vehicle bearing No. RJ 32 G 0864 by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently committed the accident and due to the same Muralidhar, Smt. Nanchi and Ganesh died and others received injuries and other issues were with regard to the fact that whether the respondent No.1 was the driver and was in the employment of the respondent No.2 and during the course of his employment, he caused the accident and another issue was with regard to the compensation. Lastly, the issue framed by the Tribunal was whether on the basis of the preliminary objections and additional pleas, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. During the trial the statement of as many as twenty seven witnesses were recorded whereas in defence the statement of two witnesses viz., Ram Swaroop and Bhagwan Das were recorded by the MACT. Out of twenty seven witnesses produced from the claimants side, all were the eye witnesses except AW-1 Surajmal. After hearing the parties the MACT while deciding issues 1 and 2 rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants on the ground that since Suraj Mal first lodged a first information report at Police Station with some different contents where in the involvement of the alleged truck was not menti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document