1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1154/2000 (Smt.Ashi Vashistha Vs. Manoj and ors.) Date of Judgment : 11-08-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.K.N.Tiwari,for the appellants. Mr.S.R.Joshi & Mr.Sandeep Mathur, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of dependents of deceased Rajkumar against the Judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur vide judgment dated 8.5.2000 challenging the finding on issue no.1 pertaining to rash and negligent driving of the scooter at the part of the deceased himself. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he had come with the case before the Tribunal that scooter No.RPX-1248 met with an accident and fell in a ditch while coming down from Nahargarh Hill to Jaipur resulting into injury and death of deceased sitting who was a pillion rider as scooter was being driven by Manoj Sharma but the Tribunal has decided issue no.1 wherein 2 it has been held that scooter was being driven by deceased Rajkumar and not by Manoj Sharma and, as such, no claim could be awarded for rash and negligent driving of deceased himself. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not decided other issues including the issue pertaining to quantum of compensation etc. It is further submitted that even if the Court was of the view that deceased himself was responsible for the accident, even then the Tribunal should have considered the case of appellant under Sec.163-A of the M.V.Act. It is submitted that he may be given opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence in the matter and the Tribunal should be directed to decide all the issues including the issue pertaining to quantum of compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that in view of evidence adduced during inquiry, the Tribunal has decided that scooter involved was in fact not being driven by Manoj Sharma but by deceased himself and the Tribunal has based its decision on the FIR as well as 3 statement of witnesses recorded in the court and same calls for no interference. 5. On hearing rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that a submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, only issue no.1 has been decided by the Tribunal against the appellants while other issues including issue pertaining to quantum of compensation has not been decided by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that even if the deceased is found liable, his claim could be considered under Sec.163-A of the M.V.Act. In view of submissions advanced, the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh decision on all the issues after giving opportunity of hearing and to adduce evidence. 6. Accordingly, impugned Judgment & award dated 8.5.2000 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on all the issues after giving full opportunity of hearing and to adduce evidence, if any, by both the parties. Both the parties are directed to remain present 4 before the Tribunal on 13.10.2009. Record be sent forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.h-41