1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

JUDGMENT

Ranveer Singh vs. Dharma Ram & anr.

S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2725/2007 u/s 173

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the

judgment and award dated 17.8.2007 passed by the

Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Labour

Court), Sri Ganganagar in M.A.C.T. Case No.

76/2005.

Date of Judgment:

04.09.2012

PRESENT

HON'BLE MRS. NISHA GUPTA, J.

Mr. G.R. Goyal for the appellant.

Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi and Mr. L.R. Punia for the respondents.

BY THE COURT:

This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated

17.8.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Labour Court), Sri Ganganagar in M.A.C.T. Case No. 76/2005.

The short facts of the case are that the claim petition was

filed on 11.1.2004 on the ground that the claimant was going on

the motor cycle from Punjab side to Sadulshahar. At 12.30

noon, near canal link channel, respondent no.1 was driving the

truck No. RJ 13-G 2285 in rash and negligent manner and hit

the motor cycle, as a result of which the claimant has sustained

2

injuries. FIR has been lodged at the concerned police station.

Challan was also filed against respondent no.1 and the claimant

filed a claim petition for appropriate compensation which was

partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and 40% liability has

been fastened on the claimant holding that the accident was

caused due to contributory negligence of the claimant.

The contention of the present appellant is that the

learned Tribunal has committed error in holding 40% negligence

of the appellant. The learned Tribunal has categorically gave a

finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the

driver of the truck and, admittedly, after investigation challan

has also been filed against the driver of the truck. The only

reason for holding the negligence of the present appellant is

that he was not holding a valid licence. No fact has been

produced before the learned Tribunal that the claimant was

driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently or he has

contributed in any way for causing the accident, hence the

finding of the learned tribunal is erroneous and liability of 40%

which has been fastened on the present appellant should be

quashed.

Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that

there is no fault in the finding and the compensation awarded.

It is not in dispute that the vehicle was coming from the

opposite direction and they collied face to face. Hence the

3

learned Tribunal has rightly held that the present appellant was

also negligent and he has contributed in the accident.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned order as well as the record of the learned Tribunal.

It is not in dispute that the motor cycle and the truck

have collied face to face but specific finding has been arrived at

by the learned Tribunal that it was the truck driver who was

negligent and positive finding has been recorded in favour of

the claimant that he has not hit the truck of respondent no.1.

The only reason for holding the present appellant liable is that

he was not having a valid driving licence. The contention of the

present appellant is that if the person drives a vehicle without

the driving licence, he can be put for an offence but for

negligence, a specific evidence should be produced to prove it

and reliance has been placed on Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder

Singh & ors. ( 2008 CDR 704(SC) ) wherein it has been held as

under:-

“If a person drivers a vehicle without a

licence, he commits an offence. The same, by

itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding

of negligence as regards the accident. It has

been held by the Court below that it was the

driver of the mini truck which was being driven

rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say

that the appel