IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that contributory negligence can significantly affect compensation in motor accident claims, particularly when claimants fail to take reasonable care.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant, service of notice upon respondent No.1-Driver, is dispensed with.

2. By way of these misc. appeals, the appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment/award dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salumber, district Udaipur (‘learned Tribunal’) in MAC Cases Nos.395/2012, 396/2012 and 397/2012, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded quantum of compensation in favour of the claimants and held non-claimants i.e. Driver, Owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle, liable to pay the said amount jointly and severally.

3. Since these appeals arise out of same controversy as well as the same judgment/award dated 26.11.2015, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.

4. The relevant background facts of the case are that on 17.01.2012 at about 2.00 PM, Shri Narendra Kumar (deceased husband of the claimant No.1-Chunni Devi in SBCMA No.1178/2016), Shyamlal (appellant/claimant in SBCMA No.2341/2016) and one Shri Logar, after parking motorcycle near Jaisamand Veerpura Badabaag, were standing and talking with each other. A car bearing registration No.RJ-03-TA-0777, driven by one Rajesh Kumar (driver), coming from Salumber in a rash and negligent manner, hit them from behind and as a result whereof, they received grievous injuries. For the treatment, all of them were rushed to Bhupal General Hospital, Udaipur and on 19.01.2012, during the treatment, Shri Narendra Kumar expired and Shyamlal and Logar were grievously injured.

5. An FIR No.12/2012 came to be lodged at the Police Station Sarada, Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. Claim petitions were filed on behalf of the injured persons and the deceased wherein, Rajesh Kumar (driver), Mahipal Singh (owner) and the insurance company were held liable to pay the compensation.

6. Respondent/non-claimants denied the averments contained in the claim petitions and stated that since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation.

7. The appellant-Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments of the claim petitions as well as of respondents/non- claimants and submitted that the accident did not take place from the vehicle in question but occurred due to the negligence of Narendra Kumar, Shyamlal and Logar.

8. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed four issues:

9. Oral as well as documentary evidences were produced by the claimants to prove their case whereas, no oral as well as documentary evidence was led by the non-claimants/respondents.

10. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants by awarding quantum of compensation in their favour and thus, being dissatisfied from the same, the appellants herein have preferred these misc. appeals.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening contributory negligence only 30% liability upon the claimants, inasmuch as the deceased as well as the injured claimants who suffered injuries on account of the said accident, were standing on the said highway and talking to each other while their own vehicle was parked and was facing towards Udaipur, i.e. the wrong side.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also submits that the road on which the accident took place was State Highway No.53 and that the driver of the offending vehicle had applied brakes well before 8-10 feet from the spot of the accident, as observed in the Naksha-Mauka, pointing towards the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had taken all the steps possible in his capacity to avoid the untoward incident. He also submits that the vehicle which was parked beside the deceased along with the injured-claimants who suffered injuries, was damaged only from the front a