IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the principle of contributory negligence does not apply when the evidence shows sole negligence by one party in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Instant Appeal has been filed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Beawar Depot, District Ajmer, Rajasthan (hereinafter as ‘Appellant/Corporation’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 09.07.2020 (hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned MACT, Sojat in MAC Case No. 66/2016 (Smt. Meena Kumari & Anr. vs. Mool Singh & Anr.), seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned award. In alternative the corporation/appellant seeks that in case this court comes to the conclusion that the driver of the corporation vehicle has contributed in the accident, then his contribution may kindly be assessed and the compensation awarded be reduced accordingly.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.07.2014 Smt. Meena (hereinafter as ‘respondent no. 1/claimant’) and Mr. Mohit (hereinafter as ‘respondent no. 2/claimant’) were travelling in a tempo-three wheeler bearing registration no. RJ22 P 0380 (hereinafter as ‘tempo’) along with four other persons from Sojat to Pali, which was being driven reasonably and on the correct side of the road, and at around 1-1.30 PM somewhere ahead of Dantiya Balaji Temple on Pali road, a roadways bus bearing registration no. RJ36 PA 1934 (hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by Mr. Mool Singh (hereinafter as ‘driver/respondent no. 3’) in rash, negligent manner and at a very high speed came from the opposite direction(Pali to Sojat) and while trying to overtake a vehicle dashed into the tempo’s front portion. As a result of the accident both the claimants(Respondents no. 1 and 2), who were travelling in the tempo sustained injuries. A FIR no. 257/2014 was lodged by one - Kailash Ram regarding the accident at police station Sojat and the police after investigation filed a challan against the driver(Respondent no. 3) of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, a claim petition MAC Case No. 66/2014 was filed by the claimants(Respondents no. 1 and 2) before MACT, Sojat(hereinafter as ‘learned tribunal’) seeking compensation from respondent no. 3 and appellant herein.

3. It was alleged by the appellant before the learned tribunal that driver/respondent no. 3 was driving the offending vehicle a slow speed and in the right lane however, the driver of the tempo (RJ22 P 0380), which was carrying passengers more than its capacity, and was driving the tempo negligently and at high speed came from the wrong side and could not control the speed of the tempo as a result of which it dashed into the offending vehicle.

4. It was further alleged by the appellant before the tribunal that the claimants have neither sustained any permanent disability and nor have they produced any document regarding the permanent disability. He also alleged before the tribunal that no serious injury was sustained by respondent no. 1. He further submitted that the driver and owner of the tempo were not made parties to the claim petition.

5. As per the pleadings of the parties the learned parties framed five issues which are being reproduced as follows:

6. The claimants examined respondent no. 1 as witness AW1 and exhibited total 40 documents.

7. After hearing both the parties, the learned tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 09.07.2020 allowed MAC No. 66/2016 and awarded Rs. 53,264 to claimant/respondent no. 1 and Rs. 7205/ to claimant/respondent no. 2 and held driver/respondent no. 3 and the appellant herein jointly and severally to pay the compensation.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/corporation has preferred the instant appeal.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/corporation that the driver/respondent no. 3 of the offending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident and the evidences showing innocence of the driver/respondent no. 3 have been ignored by the learned tribunal. He further submits that no independent eyewitness was examined by