Prakash Tatia, J.
1. These appeals are against the award dated 2.6.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Churu in nine Claim Case Nos. 68/95, 69/95, 70/95, 71/95, 15/96, 16/96, 17/96, 62/96 and 3/97 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 723/98 is against the award dated 19.5.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Churu in Claim Case No. 14/97 which was decided separately after the above nine claim petitions.
2. The facts of the case are that on 11.5.1995, the deceased Bhera Ram, Roopa Ram, Ram Niwas, Bhanwar Lal and Mohan Ram were travelling in jeep No. MR 20/B 9419 along with other passengers. The driver of the jeep was Magha Ram. At Sardarshahar Bholeri Road which is 6 kms. from Sardarshahar met with an accident from bus No. RJ 14/P 1056 of the appellant-Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation. It is alleged that the above bus came with very fast speed and Amar Singh, non-applicant (respondent No. 1), the driver of the bus, was driving the above bus No. RJ-14/P 1056 and hit the jeep at its right side causing injuries to all the passengers sitting in the jeep. An F.I.R. No. 107/95 was registered against Amar Singh, the driver of the bus of the appellant under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and for other offences.
3. The wife of Magha Ram and mother and father of Magha Ram submitted claim petition stating therein that Magha Ram was of the age of 26 years at the time of accident and death. He was earning Rs. 40,000/- per year and in all claimed Rs. 19,06,000/-. The widow of Mohan Ram and mother and father of Mohan Ram filed the claim petition stating that Mohan Ram was of the age of 20 years. He was earning Rs. 3000/- per month and in all claimed Rs. 18,61,000/-. Smt. Guddi, widow of deceased Bhera Ram along with her minor son and daughter and mother and father filed claim petition stating therein that deceased was of the age of 20 years. He was earning Rs. 55,000/- per year and claimed Rs. 28,52,000/-. The legal representatives and dependent of Bhanwar Lal, Smt. Sarawati filed the claim petition stating that Bhanwar Lal was of the age of 23 years. He was earning Rs. 3000/- per month and claimed in all Rs. 17,23,000/-. The mother and father of Ram Niwas filed claim petition stating therein that deceased Ram Niwas was of the age of 20 years getting Rs. 1500/- per month and claimed in all Rs. 9,80,000/-. The legal representatives of Roopa Ram preferred claim petition stating that the deceased was of the age of 22 years only and left behind his widow Smt. Nirani, applicants No. 2 and 3 son and daughter and applicants No. 4 and 4 father and mother. It is stated that the deceased Roopa Ram was earning Rs. 3000/- per month and claimed Rs. 17,84,000/-.
4. In addition to above claimants, claimants Birbal Ram, Sohan Ram and Sahi Ram also submitted their claim petitions wherein Birbal Ram claimed Rs. 2,61,500/-. Sohan Ram claimed Rs. 4,13,000/- and Sahi Ram claimed Rs. 18,97,000/-. The claimant Dunger Ram filed the claim petition and claimed Rs. 4,11,000/-.
5. The non-applicants including the appellant submitted their reply to the claim petitions and the learned Tribunal framed issues for each of the claim-petitions. Issue No. 1 is with respect to the rash and negligent driving of driver Amar Singh of bus No. RJ-14/P 1056 of the appellant and causing accident with jeep No. MR-20/B 9419 resulting into deaths of Bhera Ram, Roopa Ram, Ram Niwas, Bhanwar Lal, Mohan Ram and Magha Ram and causing injuries to others. Issues No. 2 to 8 were with respect to the entitlement of the amount as claimed by the claimants in each claim case whereas issue No. 9 was with respect to whether the Insurance Company is liable for the above amount. Issue Nos. 10 and 12 were framed on the pleas taken by non-applicants Ishar Ram and Bhagirath. Issue Nos. 14 and 15 are with respect to the claim of the claimants in case No. 62/96 and 3/97 and issue No. 12 was with respect to whether the applicants are not at all entitled for any claim.
6. The learned Tribunal, in pursuance of the order issued by this Court on 23.12.1993, consolidated all the claim petitions. The total 12 witnesses were produced by the claimants which are AW-1 Bhera Ram. AW-2 Pana Ram, AW-3 Girdhari Ram. AW-4 Govind Ram, AW-5 Sahi Ram, AW-6 Birbal Ram, AW-7 Sohan Ram, AW-8 Tiloka Ram, AW-9 Smt. Guddi, AW-10 Badu, AW-11 Tiku Ram and AW-12 Dula Ram. The non-appellant produced witness NAW-1 Amar Singh who was the driver of the bus.
7. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants holding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver Amar Singh and resulted into deaths of the above persons and injuries to the persons mentioned above. The learned court below, ultimately passed award dated 2.6.1996 of Rs. 1,43,000/- in claim case No. 68/1995 filed by Smt. Sarawati and Ors., Rs. 1,43,000/- in claim case No. 69/95 filed by Smt. Bimala and Ors., Rs. 1,38,000/- in claim case No. 70/1995 filed by Gomada Ram & another, Rs. 1,43,000/- in claim case No. 71/1995 filed by Smt. Nirani and others. Rs. 1,43,000/- in claim case No. 16/1996 filed by Smt. Guddi and others. Rs. 1,79,000/- in claim No. 17/1997 filed by Smt. Badu Devi and Ors., Rs. 10,000/- in claim case No. 15/1996 filed by Sahi Ram, Rs. 17,500/- in claim case No. 62/1996 filed by Birbal Ram and Rs. 25,000/- in claim case No. 3/97 filed by Sohan Ram. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 19.5.1998 awarded Rs. 36,000/- in the claim case No. 14/97 filed by Dungar Ram.
8. The appellant preferred these appeals challenging the awards and the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that this was a clear case of contributory negligence of both the drivers of the bus and the jeep and, therefore, the appellant alone cannot be held responsible for the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the witnesses produced by the respondent-claimants AW-5 Sahi Ram, AW-6 Birbal Ram and AW-7 Sohan Ram are also interested witnesses and their testimony with respect to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus cannot be relied upon whereas the witness produced by the appellant was the driver of the bus Amar Singh and his statement is more reliable than the statements of the witnesses of the claimants. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Tribunal committed serious illegality in passing the award only against the appellant.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant tried to support his contention by showing the facts of the case and submitted that it is clear from the facts given in the claim petitions as well as from the evidence of both the parties that the driver of the jeep was carrying 12 passengers and was driving the vehicle at the speed of 100 kms. per hours and did not took care which should have been taken by him reasonably. He did not even try to give side to the bus and, in fact, if it is not proved that it was the total negligence of the driver of the jeep, at least, it is clear that the driver of the jeep was also equally responsible for the damages as he was driving the jeep and there was no control over the jeep of the driver.
10. I perused the impugned award as well as the statements of the witnesses and also perused site inspection report prepared by the police.
11. The learned court below, after considering the evidence, observed that there is no dispute with respect to the accident and also there is no dispute with respect to persons who died in the accident. The court below observed that it would be relevant to look into the site inspection report as the witnesses may try to speak lie but the circumstances will not give a wrong picture.
12. PW-6 Sahi Ram stated that on 11.5.1995 he was travelling in the jeep. There were in all 12 passengers. He categorically stated that the roadways bus (of the appellant) came blindly running with fast speed and hit the jeep. Sahi Ram stated that the jeep-driver stopped the jeep and brought it down from the road but the bus gave hit resulting into deaths of six persons and he also suffered injuries. PW-7 Birbal Ram stated that the jeep was being driven by Magha Ram and at the time of accident, the jeep was going with the speed of 30 kms. per hour. He stated that roadways bus was coming with very fast speed and hit the jeep. AW-7 Sohan Ram also stated that at the time of accident the speed of the jeep was 30 kms. per hour and it was the roadways bus who hit the jeep and at that time, speed of the roadways bus was too fast.
13. In rebuttal to above, NAW-1 Amar Singh stated that at the time of accident, the jeep was with a speed of 100 kms. per hour and it was wavering and, after seeing the jeep coming with such a great speed, he stopped his bus and brought the bus away from the main road and there was about 20 ft. slope on both the sides of the road but he stated that at the side of the jeep there was 25 ft. open space. According to NAW-1 Amar Singh, the jeep hit the bus. The bus was standing and the jeep went 15 ft. away after hitting the bus.
14. From the above evidence, it appears that the statement of AW-5 Sahi Ram cannot be believed with respect to the fact that the jeep was stopped by the driver and, thereafter, it was hit by the bus. At the same time, if statement of NAW-1 Amar Singh is looked into, then the statement of Amar Singh is also not worth reliance in view of the fact that he stated that the jeep was running with a speed of 100 kms. per hour. That itself shows that it was exaggeration of the fact, particularly, when according to the witnesses there were 12 passengers in the jeep. Supposing it that it was not the exact speed of the vehicle even then this indicates excessively high speed of the jeep and when Amar Singh who was the driver of the bus himself states so, naturally be must have seen the jeep coming so fast, then also it was his duty to take reasonable care to prevent the accident. The evidence of NAW-1 Amar Singh, if examined along with the site inspection report, then also it appears that Amar Singh is not giving true facts. Amar Singh stated in his statement that at the spot of accident the road-width was 32 ft. whereas the map Ex.3 prepared of the site shows that the road was only 12 ft. wide and not 32 ft. wide. Therefore, it appears that Amar Singh is not stating true facts. The site inspecting report does not support statement of Amar Singh on the fact of stopping the bus below the road. No tyre-impressions of the bus were seen on the road showing' that the bus was brought down from the road. It is also clear that because of the accident, the front portion of the bus fell down on the road, therefore, it was not in a position to move.
15. In view of the above reasonings, the statement of NAW-1 Amar Singh is not reliable, whereas statements of PW-6 Birbal Ram and AW-7 Sohan Ram appear to be true and both stated that the jeep was running with a speed of 30 kms. per hour which cannot be said to be excessive speed. If it is so, then the impact which is of such great force resulting into deaths of so many persons and causing injuries to so many persons, then naturally the impact was due to the fast speed of the other vehicle which is a bus.
16. It is also clear from the site inspection report that even when the bus was coming from the other side, it would not be possible for the jeep driver to bring the jeep down from the road in the sand as there was a very small space and, thereafter, there was a deep slope which might have caused much more serious accident. Therefore, he has no option but to either stop the jeep or keep it slow. When the speed of the jeep at 30 kms. per hour was stated by the witnesses, then it cannot be said to be an excessive speed but it appears that this speed was kept by the jeep-driver to provide space for the bus and the bus-driver, instead of keeping the bus slow, tried to ran fast crossing the jeep. Therefore, it is clear from the above evidence as well as from the site inspection report that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the bus-driver Amar Singh.
17. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the learned Tribunal in holding that this was a case of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and in awarding total claim against the appellant only.
18. No other point was pressed.
19. In view of the above discussion all the appeals are dismissed.