The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of negligence in a motor accident case and the entitlement of claimants to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Civil Misc. Appeal (No. 36/2001) is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.10.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 86/1996 titled as "Smt. Kamla Devi & Ors. Vs. Bheem Ji Bhai & Ors." whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,22,000/- in favour of the claimants, while holding the appellant Insurer liable for payment of the entire award amount.

2. The prayer clause as made in this appeal is as follows:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 09.10.2000 passed by MACT (I), Jodhpur in MACT Claim No. 86/96 may kindly be set-aside and the claims petition may kindly be dismissed as against the appellant company with costs throughout. Any other relief to which the appellant company may be entitled, may kindly be granted in its favour."

3. Brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that on the fateful day, i.e., 09.08.1995, the husband of the respondent Smt. Kamla Devi and father of the minor children, namely, Lala Ram along with one pillion rider (Sukhram) at around 5:00 p.m. were going from Balotra to Pachpadra on the motorcycle bearing registration number R.N.M. 7327 and when they reached near a temple of Lord Mahadevji then, a tanker bearing registration number GJ.-12/T-7848 came in front of the motorcycle which was driven by the non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently and suddenly coming from wrong side, collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the collusion, motor riders, namely, Lalaram and Sukhram received serious injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. The motorcycle was completely destroyed. The clothes were also destroyed in the accident. It was alleged that the deceased (Lalaram) was 37 years in age. He allegedly earned Rs. 12,000/-per month by involving himself in various types of work. The non-applicant No.1 was the driver and the non-applicant No.2 was the owner and the non-applicant No.3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. It was alleged that all the non-applicants were liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. An amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

4. The learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the non-applicants No. 1 and 2.

5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the non-applicant No.3 (insurer), it was alleged that the claimants have claimed huge amount of compensation without any basis. It was alleged that the accident was not occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending tanker. On the contrary, it was alleged that the accident in question was occurred by the negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. It was also alleged that the tanker was driven by the driver, who was not holding the valid license and thereby, violation of the terms of the policy was alleged. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. It was further alleged that the driver of the motorcycle was also not holding the valid license and, therefore, for this reason, the Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, as many as four issues were framed by the Tribunal which reads as under:-

7. In support of their claim, the claimants have recorded the statements of PW-1 Kamla & Tikmaram as PW-2 and exhibited as many as 16 documents, viz., FIR (Ex.1), Report of Accident (Ex.1), Recovery Memo, of motorcycle (Ex.3), Chargesheet (Ex.4), Memo, of site (Ex.5), Site Plan (Ex.6), Recovery Memo, of tanker(Ex.7), Memo, of dead-body (Ex.8), Panchnama of dead-body (Ex.9), Postmortem report (Ex.10), MTO Report (Ex.11), MTO Report of motorcycle (Ex.12), Notice (Ex.13), RC of Motorcycle (Ex.14), Receipts issued by the Department of Mines & Geology (Ex.15 & Ex.16).

8. No evidence was produced on behalf of the non-applicants.

9. Issue No.1 regarding negligence was deci