JUDGMENT :

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.

The case is listed in orders category as the appeal preferred by the appellants is 75 days time barred.

2. Heard counsel for the parties on the application preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. The counsel for the respondents-claimants has not seriously opposed the application.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay occasioned in filing the appeal is condoned.

5. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

6. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 17.03.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 26/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 45,95,740/- in favour of the respondents claimants with an interest @ 7% p.a.

7. A claim petition was preferred by the respondents-claimants No. 1 & 2 contending therein that on 18.01.2016 at about 7:30 pm, Sunil Kumar was going to Jasai from Shiv on his motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-04-SH-1160. When he reached the National Highway No. 15 situated at the outskirt of Kapurdi, an Army Jeep bearing Registration No. 05BO92511Y driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the motorcycle of Sunil Kumar and caused the accident. In the said accident, Sunil Kumar died on the spot.

8. Learned Tribunal after framing of the issues, adjudicated the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 45,95,740/- as compensation in favour of the claimants vide its judgment and award dated 17.03.2018.

9. The counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 & 3 suffer from an error apparent on the face of record. The driver of the Jeep was driving the Jeep on the correct side and the deceased who was rashly and negligently driving the motorcycle in the center of the road, collided with the appellant's Jeep. The driver of the Jeep in order to prevent the accident took a sharp right turn, as a result of which the Jeep tumbled and overturned on the right side of the road. Therefore, no fault can be found with the driver of the Jeep. The counsel, therefore, submits that learned Tribunal escaped the point of contributory negligence while deciding the issue Nos. 1 & 3 and therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence adduced before it.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that deceased Sunil Kumar was driving the motorcycle on the correct side of the road and the Jeep of the appellants being rashly and negligently driven by its driver collided with the motorcycle of deceased on the wrong side of the road. Thus, entire liability has rightly been fastened on the appellants for rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep. He further submits that the site plan prepared by the police during investigation categorically shows that the driver of the Jeep left his side of the road and came in the wrong side and thus, hit the motorcycle and caused the accident in which Sunil Kumar died. Therefore, appreciation of the facts of the accident was correctly done by the Tribunal. The counsel, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

11. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant documents produced, I am of the view that the factum of accident with the Jeep of the appellants is not disputed. The only point as to whether the Jeep was being driven rashly and negligent has been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal or not is to be seen. The findings on issue No. 1 & 3 clearly show that the driver of the Jeep hit the motorcycle on the right side of the road and then overturned it, shows the fact that the Jeep was driven on the opposite side of the road causing the accident. Th