Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Madan Gopal Vyas, J.
Riyanchi and anr. - Appellants
Versus
Shri Nathulal and anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 404 of 2001, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 405 of 2001 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 454 of 2001
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera for Mr. Sandeep Saruparia
The burden of proof for contributory negligence lies with the non-claimants, and a finding of negligence must be supported by adequate evidence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Civil miscellaneous appeals against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Claimants sought enhancement of compensation following a fatal accident involving a car and truck - Tribunal initially held 90% negligence on part of the car driver - Court found insufficient evidence to support this finding and remanded the case for fresh consideration. (Paras 10, 15, 17)
(B) Burden of proof - The burden to establish contributory negligence lies with the non-claimants, which they failed to do - Court emphasized the necessity of proper evidence evaluation. (Paras 11, 15)
Facts of the case:
Claimants were involved in an accident on 12.12.1994, resulting in the death of a family member and injuries to others. Three claim petitions were filed against the driver, owner, and insurance company of the offending vehicle. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the initial finding of 90% negligence on the car driver was unsupported by evidence and remanded the case for a fresh decision. (Paras 15, 17)
Issues: The main issues included the assessment of negligence and the proper evaluation of evidence. (Paras 10, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Tribunal's conclusion on contributory negligence was not tenable due to lack of supporting evidence and emphasized the importance of evaluating eyewitness testimony. (Paras 15)
Result: Appeals allowed; the Tribunal's award is quashed and remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 17)
JUDGMENT :
Madan Gopal Vyas, J.
The present civil miscellaneous appeals under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are directed against the judgment and award dated 14.02.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Rajsamand (the Tribunal, for short) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the claimants. Since all the three appeals pertain to same incident and involve connected issues, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Vide order dated 26.09.2023, it was recorded that on 03.07.2019, 26.07.2019 and 07.05.2022, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents and the appeal is pending consideration since 2001, therefore, if on the next date of hearing, nobody appears on behalf of respondents, the appeals shall be decided after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The arguments were heard and concluded and the judgment was reserved.
4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 12.12.1994, claimants Vinod and his brother Dilip Kumar and sister-in-law Smt. Pawan were going from their village Bhudan to Mumbai at about 2 A.M. When they reached Kailashpuri, Dilip Kumar tried to overtake his car bearing No. MH 02/6859, when a truck bearing No. RSE 7091 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) without giving any signal/light came and hit the car resulting into death of Smt. Pawan and injuries to Dilip Kumar and Vinod. Later Dilip Kumar also died. Three claim petitions were preferred by the claimants against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as well as against the insurance company.
5. The driver and owner submitted their reply to the claim petition and stated that there was no negligence of the truck driver and the negligence was of the driver of the car.
6. The insurance company of the truck also submitted its reply to the claim petitions and stated that on the basis of the Naksha Mauka and Parcha Mauka, it is clear that there was negligence of the driver of the car and in case, the learned Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for the amount of compensation, then on the basis of principle of contributory negligence, the award may be passed.
7. The insurance company of the car i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited has also submitted its reply and stated that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. The claimants examined as many as three witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.
9. The learned Tribunal after conclusion of the trial, decided issue no. 1 and held that there was 90% negligence on the part of driver of the car and 10% negligence on the part of driver of the truck.
10. In so far as aforesaid three appeals are concerned, they have been preferred by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of the award amount.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that there was no negligence on part of the driver of the car and the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed that there was 90% contributory negligence on his part. It is submitted that the learned tribunal only considered the Naksha Mauka from which it is not clear that whether there was any negligence on part of the driver of the car or not. It is further submitted that even the said Naksha Mauka was prepared after 12 hours of the accident. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the statements of the two eye witnesses produced by the claimants. Further, if the charge-sheet is seen, then it is clear that the investigating agency has come to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of driver of the truck. It is submitted that the driver and owner failed to adduce any evidence to prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car. It is further submitted that in claim cases,
