1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR The Assistant Engineer, L.D.R.S.E.B., Rawatbhata, Kota & Ors. V/s. Smt. Sarla Khandelwal & Ors. (S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.1373/2010) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Date of Order :: May 25, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Abhay Jain for the appellants. Aggrieved by the award dated 19.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Tribunal”), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,36,500/- along with an interest @ 6% per annum, the appellants have challenged the same before this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.2005 around 2:15 AM, Narendra Kumar and Ramesh Gurjar were going on motorcycles from Civil Lines Gavadee to Rithara, and Narendra was going to Kheda Rasoolpur. At that time, Parmeshwar Sharma who was driving a Jeep, bearing No.RJH- 2858, came from the opposite direction and collided with the 2 motorcycle near Nayapura Thana. Resultantly Narendra Kumar expired. The respondent-claimants, having lost their sole bread earner, filed a claim petition against the appellants as the driver Parmeshwar was an employee of the appellants. In order to buttress their case, the claimants examined three witness and submitted sixty-nine documents. The appellants, as the respondent before the learned Tribunal, examined three witnesses and submitted two documents. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the award, as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised three contentions before this Court : firstly, since the accident had occurred at Kota, the learned Tribunal at Jaipur did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case. In fact, the claimants should have filed the claim petition in Kota. Secondly, since the accident was a head-on-collision, the learned Tribunal should have presumed that 50% of the negligence was that of the deceased himself. Therefore, the appellants are liable to pay only for 50% of the negligence committed on the part of the driver. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the quantum. Instead of deducting one-third of the amount, as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself, the learned Tribunal has deducted only one-forth. Hence, it has mis- calculated the “loss of income” to the claimants. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, examined the record and perused the impugned award. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that the claimants can file a claim petition at the place where they reside. They need not file the claim petition where the accident has taken place. Since the claimants-respondents, in the present case, reside in Jaipur, they were certainly justified in filing the claim petition before the learned Tribunal at Jaipur. Therefore the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal is meritless. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a decision of the Apex Court should not be applied as a provision of law. Merely because in few cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in case of a head-on-collision, in middle of the road, the Court may presume that it is a case of contributory negligence, where both the sides are at fault, however this observation cannot be accepted as a universal truth. Since each case has to be decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the individual case, one would have to look at the factual matrix of each case to see if such a presumption is warranted or not. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has meticulously examined the evidence 4 available on record to conclude that the negligence was that of the jeep driver and was not of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has observed that there was no indication that the road was a one-way street. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the appellants were justified in claiming that the deceased was coming from the wrong direction. According to the learned Tribunal since the road was opened to traffic from both the sides, the deceased was certainly justified in driving on the road. Secondly, according to the site plan (Ex.P.7), the accident had occurred in middle of the road, However, the site plan also clearly indicates that the jeep which was coming from south to north direction, hit the motorcycle and dragged the motorcycle to the left side of the road to a distance of almost 15 feet. The site plan also reveals that there are marks on the road which clearly show that the driver of the jeep had hit the brakes suddenly. Seeing these glaring facts revealed by the site plan, the learned Tribunal concluded, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that the jeep was being driven at a high speed that too in the middle of the road and when the driver of the jeep hit the brakes suddenly it still dragged the motorcycle for fifteen feet towards the left side of the road. Thus, the negligence of the jeep driver is writ large. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that the negligence was solely of the jeep driver and not of the deceased. 5 As far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has deducted one-forth of the amount, as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)]. Since the learned Tribunal has followed a case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted for having deducted merely one-forth of the amount. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned award dated 19.02.2010. This appeal being devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-