IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 245 of 2006 Smt. Bhagwati & two others … Appellants Vs Maharban Singh … Respondents Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellants Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Almora in M.A.C.T. No. 8 of 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2004 at about 04:30 p.m., the deceased was traveling in vehicle No. UA05/2771. At about 04:30 p.m. near Bhairvi Mandir Sheraghat, the vehicle fell down in a khud due to rash and negligent driving by the driver resulting into the death of the deceased. It has stated that the deceased was 23 years of age and by doing agricultural work and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The said vehicle was owned by Meharban Singh and the same was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. 3. The owner of the said vehicle, namely, Meharban Singh has filed a written statement and has admitted that he is the owner of the vehicle. It has been submitted that the driver was driving the vehicle. It has been submitted 2 that the driver was driving the vehicle with precaution. He has submitted that on the date of accident, suddenly, a person came in front of the vehicle and in order to save that person he turned the vehicle towards corner but the vehicle fell down into the khud as there was soft soil in the corner. It has been submitted that on the date of accident the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No. 4618000/31/04/6304437 from 29.10.2004 to 28.10.2005. The vehicle was being driven with all the valid papers and insurance company is liable to indemnify the claim. 4. The National Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the written statement wherein it has been submitted that there is no prove that any accident had taken place. The burden of prove the fact that the vehicle was being driven by a person having a valid driving licence and valid permit, etc. lies on the owner. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed at a great length. The Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record held that the petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act but is allowed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act and granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of no fault liability vide judgment and award dated 28.02.2006. 3 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the appeal before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in the beginning of the argument has invited my attention towards the other judgments passed by the Tribunal arising out in the same accident. Some of the claim petitions, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the ground of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, but in some of the cases, the Tribunal has adopted the double standard by dismissing the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and allowed the same under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act and awarded the compensation of no fault liability. 8. Perusal of the record of the other cases, it appears to me that the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. in the cases where the compensation has been awarded on the ground of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the same have been dismissed by this Court vide various judgments in different appeals. This Court also remanded the matter in the cases, where the compensation has been awarded on the ground of no fault liability. 9. Appeal No. 243 of 2006, Pratap Singh Vs Meharban Singh, was remanded back for deciding the question of quantum of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in accordance with the background available on record. This Court in the aforesaid appeal 4 quashed the finding of the Tribunal holding that the claimant has failed to prove the rash and negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. 10. The facts and circumstances of the present case are identical. The petition related to the same accident, therefore, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back for deciding the question with regard to the quantum of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 11. As two standards have been adopted by the Tribunal in the same matter which arise out of the one accident and the Tribunal has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending Vehicle, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of the accident is set aside. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the claims tribunal for considering the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment as well as the judgment passed by this Court in A.O. No. 243 of 2006 decided on 26.09.2007. 13. The file of the court below be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 16.06.2008 ASWAL 5