JUDGMENT
J.P. Singh, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.12.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), New Delhi, dismissing claim of the widow and children of the deceased who died as a result of the accident caused by a DTC bus. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed this appeal.
2. I have heard Mr. T.R. Sandhu, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Ms. Saroj Bidawat, learned Counsel for respondents, and have gone through the impugned judgment and perused the record. The following issues were framed by the learned Judge, MACT:
Issues:
(1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of vehicle No. DHP 3671?
(2) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom?
(3) Relief.
3. The learned Judge, MACT held that the DTC bus was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that the TSR driver (three-wheeler scooter) in which Swinder Singh (deceased) was traveling was at fault. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Trial Court by arguing that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the eye-witness PW-5 and has opined that FIR could not be relied upon. It is submitted that the MACT failed to take notice of the FIR, site plan and other evidence. It is argued that whosoever was at fault, whether the DTC driver or TSR driver, the passenger (deceased) was not to be blamed and even in the case of contributory negligence or no rash or no negligence case compensation had to be granted. Learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, supported the reasoning given in the impugned judgment.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment titled Veena Kumar and Ors. v. Jasbir Singh and Ors. reported in III (2004) ACC 90 wherein the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioners could not prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Relying on Supreme Court judgment titled S. Khushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1 (2001) ACC 151 (SC), it was held that, the respondent could still be held liable in view of no fault liability envisaged in Sections 140 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The matter was remanded for deciding the issue of quantum of compensation payable to the appellant. Another judgment cited by learned Counsel for the appellant is Bala and Ors. v. Motichand Gupta and Ors. reported in I (2006) ACC 337, wherein due credence was given to the FIR and further held that even assuming that negligence was not proved, Tribunal should have taken recourse to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the law, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the MACT for deciding the same afresh, in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2nd February, 2007.