IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the principles of negligence and contributory negligence in motor vehicle accident claims, validating the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

1. These misc. appeals have been filed by the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 27.03.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Cases No.73/2006, 28/2006, 71/2006, 36/2006 and 72/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the respondents/claimants and awarded compensation in favour of respective respondents/claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petitions.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation submits that service upon driver/non-claimant No.1 of offending Bus may be dispensed with at the risk and peril of the Corporation.

3. Ordered accordingly.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents/ claimants filed claim petitions claiming compensation on account of death of Anardeen and Imran and for the injuries suffered by Abid Ahmed and Saddam (who subsequently died) in the accident, which took place on 02.11.2005. In the claim petitions, it was inter-alia stated that on 02.11.2005, Anardeen (deceased) along with his sons, namely, Sakeel, Imran, Saddan and Abid was going on his motorcycle to handover some ornaments and meet his relatives. The said motorcycle was plied by Sakeel. The accident took place near Khandli Kothi turn, when the non-claimant No.1 driver of offending Bus (RJ-10-P-3567) while plying the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, as a result of which the riders and pillion riders of the motorcycle sustained injuries and two of them died. The offending Bus was in the registered ownership of appellant Corporation and the same was plied by non-claimant No.1 under the employment and instructions of his owner. The respondents/claimants thus filed claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.33,60,000/-, 34,18,000/-, 41,94,000/-, 37,50,000/- and 20,80,000/-respectively.

5. After registration of the claim petitions, summons were issued to the non-claimants. No reply to the claim petition was filed on behalf of non-claimant No.1.

6. On behalf of non-claimant No.2 i.e. appellant, reply to claim petition was filed while raising certain preliminary objections. It was stated by the appellant that there were five persons riding on the motorcycle and the motorcycle was plied by its rider rashly and negligently and it dashed to the standing bus. The rider of the motorcycle himself violated the rules and in complete derogation of the statutory rules, the motorcycle was plied by its rider. It was further stated that owner of motorcycle (RJ-32-2M-7664) though was a necessary party to the lis, was not made party non-claimant in the claim petition, therefore, the claim petitions were liable to be rejected.

7. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues, including relief. In support of their claim petitions, the claimants examined AW.1 Rasida, AW.2 Yakub Ali Bhati, AW.3 Kundanran, AW.4 Islamudeen and AW.5 Abid and 19 documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, AW.1 Shaitan Singh, NAW.2 Parmeshwar Singh were examined and two documents were exhibited.

8. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard arguments of both the parties and after considering the material produced before it vide impugned judgment and award dated 27.03.2009 partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.3,81,000/-, Rs.3,21,000/-, Rs.13,200/- and Rs.3,40,000/-along with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of respective claimants and the liability was fastened upon the non-claimants to pay the compensation.

9. In CMA Nos.796/2009, 797/2009, 798/2009 and 799/2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court admitted the appeal/s on 15.07.2009 and thereafter vide order dated 11.11.2009, the stay application was disposed of while staying the execution of the award against the appellant subject to appellant depositing 50% of th