IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the driver was solely negligent, and the deceased, being a minor, bore no responsibility for the accident.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by appellants/non-claimants viz. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 01.06.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.119/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of untimely death of Ms. Rekha (deceased), who lost her life in the accident, which took place on 19.05.2001.

2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondents/ claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of their daughter, Ms. Rekha. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia stated that while their daughter Ms. Rekha was standing outside their house, the driver of the offending Bus bearing registration number RJ-27-P-2338 drove the Bus rashly and negligently & hit Ms. Rekha, as a result of which she sustained injuries and she died during treatment. The respondents No.1 & 2/claimants thus filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- under various heads.

3. On receipt of the summons, on behalf of appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2 and driver/non-claimant No.3, joint reply to claim petition was filed while refuting the claim laid therein. It was stated that there was no fault on the part of driver of the offending Bus and the deceased died due to her own fault, inasmuch as she while walking on the road, came in the middle of the road and dashed with the Bus. It was thus stated and prayed that no liability could have been fastened upon the non-claimants.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination. In support of their claim, the claimant No.1 examined himself as AW.1 and AW.2 Raju Yadav and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, statements of NAW.1 Devishanker (non-claimant No.3/ driver) were recorded.

5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of claimants along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. from 02.07.2001. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally.

6. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 04.04.2005 and thereafter after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the stay application was dismissed on 27.09.2005.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that while passing the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has not examined the material on record in its entirety and objectivity. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while deciding the Issue No.1 the learned Tribunal has erred on facts and law and erroneously held that the driver of the offending Bus was plying the Bus rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal as to negligence is based on assumption and presumption and the relevant evidence on record has not been considered in correct perspective. Learned counsel for the appellants while drawing the attention of the Court towards site plan submits that there is no negligence on the part of driver of the offending Bus and the accident had occurred on coal tar road. He submits that the although driver of the offending Bus tried best efforts to avoid the accident, but since the deceased suddenly came on the road, the accident could not be averted.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to apply the principle of ‘rest ipsa locutor, and contributory negligence which vitiates the impugned