(1) CMA 96/98- (Smt. Mranalini & Ors. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) (2)CMA.514/01- (Smt. Chitra & Ors.Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) & (3)CMA.223/03- (Beni Ram & Anr. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) Judgment dt.9.9.09 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT 1. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.96/1998 (Smt. Mranalini & Ors. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) 2. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.514/2001 (Smt. Chitra & Ors. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) 3. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.223/2003 (Beni Ram & Anr. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) Date of order : 9th September, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. J.K. Chanda for the appellant ) Mr. Manoj Pareekh for Mr. Sanjay Mathur) for the appellants. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur ) Mr. Vimal Mathur, Government Counsel. ------- BY THE COURT:- 1. These three appeals are directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated 14.10.1999 whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the claim petition of the claimants deciding the issue No.1 against the claimants whereas “no fault claim” as per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was awarded in favour of the claimants. 2. From the impugned order, it appears that the accident in (1) CMA 96/98- (Smt. Mranalini & Ors. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) (2)CMA.514/01- (Smt. Chitra & Ors.Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) & (3)CMA.223/03- (Beni Ram & Anr. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) Judgment dt.9.9.09 2/5 question took place on 7.6.1992 at around 8:15 AM in the morning when three persons on one scooter namely deceased Kuldeep Singh, deceased Om Prakash Gotam and deceased Shankar Lal Suthar were going on the said scooter and while overtaking a bus of RSRTC they collided with the offending vehicle, truck No.RJ-27-G—0259 of P.H.E.D. Department of Government of Rajasthan coming from the other side and were crushed by the said truck and these three persons lost their lives. 3. AW-4 Amba Lal Suthar deposed before the learned Tribunal that after the said accident he along with three other persons took these three persons, who met the said accident, to the hospital and at the time of accident the said scooter was coming from Udaipur city side to Krishi Mandi and the speed of the truck in question was fast and the said truck hit the said scooter and the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the said truck. The scooter in question was hit from the driver side of the said offending truck on account of which these three persons fell at some distance and the scooter in question also got crushed under the truck and on the both sides of the road the pipes for laying down of the pipeline for the PHED department were lying. 4. On the other hand NAW-1 Roop Lal, the driver of the (1) CMA 96/98- (Smt. Mranalini & Ors. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) (2)CMA.514/01- (Smt. Chitra & Ors.Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) & (3)CMA.223/03- (Beni Ram & Anr. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) Judgment dt.9.9.09 3/5 truck in question and NAW-2 Sadhu Ram, Khalasi of the truck deposed before the Tribunal that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was driving very slow, however, after the accident both these persons fled from the seen and reported the matter to the police. 5. The investigation officer has prepared the site inspection report Exhibit 13 which has been perused by this Court. From the said site inspection report, it appears that the said accident took place on the State high way just near the Krishi Mandi and the road width is wide enough for allowing two heavy vehicles to ply at the same time. While overtaking the bus, the said scooter collided with the truck coming from the opposite side and was hit in a head on collision with the said truck and three young persons lost their life unfortunately. 6. The learned Tribunal also in its findings at page 6 of the impugned award has found that at what speed the truck in question was being driven cannot be ascertained and the learned Tribunal proceeded to reject the claim only on the ground that there were three persons on the same scooter which was against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. After hearing the learned counsels at some length and upon perusal of the impugned award, the site inspection report and (1) CMA 96/98- (Smt. Mranalini & Ors. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) (2)CMA.514/01- (Smt. Chitra & Ors.Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) & (3)CMA.223/03- (Beni Ram & Anr. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) Judgment dt.9.9.09 4/5 other relevant records, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in deciding the issue No.1 against the claimants. Since the road width was enough on the State high way and even though the truck was coming on the left side of the road, it cannot be said that merely because three persons were riding on the same scooter, though apparently contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said that the truck in question was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. While overtaking the bus, the scooter driver appears to have not been able to maintain his speed in such a manner so as to fully over take that vehicle and in the process appears to have collided with the truck in question coming from the other side. In such situation a careful driver of the said truck could have avoided such accident by applying brakes to his vehicle and thus, could have prevented such accident. On the State high way just opposite Krishi Mandi, the said truck cannot be expected to have been driven at a very fast speed as the main gate of Krishi Mandi is shown in site inspection report only a few feet away from the accident site and, therefore, the said truck driver by applying brakes could have prevented the accident in question. At the most the scooter driver coming from other side with three persons on the said scooter could only be held to have contributed to the said accident while not taking full care in not overtaking the said bus in the said manner at that time. (1) CMA 96/98- (Smt. Mranalini & Ors. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) (2)CMA.514/01- (Smt. Chitra & Ors.Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) & (3)CMA.223/03- (Beni Ram & Anr. Vs. Roop Lal & Anr.) Judgment dt.9.9.09 5/5 8. Be that as it may, the complete rejection of the claim, in these facts and circumstances of the case, does not appear to be justified. The findings of issue No.1 of the learned Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above, these appeals are allowed and it is considered appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur for decision afresh in accordance with law. 10. Since the accident in question had taken place on 7.6.1992 and 17 years have passed by now, the learned Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition on merits expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months from today. However, amount already paid to the claimants towards “No fault liability” shall not be recovered back from them. 11. With these observations, these appeals are allowed. The record of the Tribunal may be sent back forthwith. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.174 to 176 babulal/