JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. Tayongchuba, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the present batch of Appeals and Mr. Tali AO, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present batch of four Appeals is directed against the common judgment and order dated 23.01.2020 passed in MAC Case No. 28/2014, MAC Case No. 29/2014, MAC Case No. 30/2014 and MAC Case No. 112/2014. 3. The challenge made to the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2020 are on three grounds of objection. 4. First, the claimants had approached the Court by filing an application under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act of 1988”), and therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the claimants to prove rash and negligent driving in order to be entitled to any form of compensation. 5. The second ground is that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland (for short, “the learned Tribunal”) had taken into consideration a sketch map which was neither a sketch map prepared by the police nor a sketch map prepared by a Commission being issued by the learned Tribunal. Rather, it was a sketch map prepared by the husband of the claimant in MAC Case No.112/2014, and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the said sketch map in passing the impugned judgment and order. 6. The third ground of objection raised is that the owner, driver as well as the Insurance Company of the Maruti Gypsy was not impleaded in the said claim proceedings. 7. For deciding these three grounds of objection so taken in respect to the impugned judgment and order, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present proceedings. 8. On 10.09.2015, a Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No.NL-03-2658 was proceeding from Longleng Town, Nagaland to Dimapur, Nagaland. On the way, before reaching Dimapur about 100 meters away towards Dimapur from Gautam Basti Junction on NH-39, Khatkhati, Bokajan Sub-Division, Karbi Anglong, Assam on a sharp curve of the road towards the left, a bus bearing re-assigned registration No.AS-05-B-6537 originally registered as NL-04-B-0550 coming from the opposite direction, hit the Maruti Gypsy which resulted in an accident. In the Maruti Gypsy, there were 4 occupants including the owner and driver. In the Maruti Gypsy, there were 4 occupants including the owner and driver. The three occupants including the owner and the driver sustained fatal injuries and expired. The legal representatives of the three occupants who expired had filed MAC Case No.28/2014, MAC Case No.29/2014 and MAC Case No.30/2014. In so far as the fourth occupant is concerned, she sustained serious injuries and it is on that ground, MAC Case No.112/2014 was filed. 9. This Court, taking into account the first ground of objection finds it relevant to take note of the allegation contained at paragraph No.8 in all the claim proceedings filed before the learned Tribunal. It was specifically alleged in all the claim proceedings that about 100 meters away towards Dimapur from Gautam Basti Junction in NH-39, Khatkhati, Bokajan Sub-Division, Karbi Anglong, Assam in a sharp curve of the road towards the left, the bus bearing re-assigned registration No.AS-05-B-6537 (PSV Bus) which was originally registered as NL-04-D-0550, owned by the respondent No.1 and driven by the employed driver, the respondent No.2 which was coming from the opposite direction, came by the wrong side of the road occupying the entire road meant for the opposite coming vehicles and hit the Maruti Gypsy by the front right-hand side of the bus. It was also mentioned that there was a road divider with white paint mark all along the road. However, while negotiating the curve of the road, the bus took the road meant for the opposite coming vehicles while negotiating the sharp curve of the road leading to hitting the Maruti Gypsy. The appellant Insurance Company herein, the respondent in the said claim proceedings filed its written statement denying the said allegation. The records reveal that in pursuance to the written statement filed by the respondent in the claim proceedings, as many as four Issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. The four Issues are as herein under:- (i) Whether the claim petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary party as two vehicles were involved in the accident dated 10.09.2013? If so, whether the claim petitions are maintainable? (ii) Whether the offending bus was road worthy and was having all valid and effective documents including driving license of its driver at the time of accident? (iii) Whether any criminal case has been registered against any of the drivers of the two vehicles? If so, against whom? If so, whether the claim petitions are maintainable? (ii) Whether the offending bus was road worthy and was having all valid and effective documents including driving license of its driver at the time of accident? (iii) Whether any criminal case has been registered against any of the drivers of the two vehicles? If so, against whom? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what extent and who is liable to pay? 10. It appears from the above quoted four Issues that though allegation of rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus which resulted in the accident and there in the claim applications and denial to the same by the Appellant Insurance Company in their written statement, but there was no specific Issue framed as to whether the accident which occurred on 10.09.2013 was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing re-assigned registration No.AS-05-B-6537 originally registered as NL-04-B-0550. 11. Be that as it may, from the evidence which have been adduced by both the parties, it appears that the parties were in the know that the Issue pertaining to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing re-assigned registration No.AS-05-B-6537 originally registered as NL-04-B-0550 which led to the accident on 10.09.2013 was an issue. This aspect is apparent from the evidence so adduced by the claimants in all the four proceedings and the cross- examination of the claimants by the Appellant Insurance Company. 12. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence so adduced by the claimants witnesses in respect to MAC Case No.29/2014 and MAC Case No.30/2014 were by their legal representatives who were not eye witnesses to the accident, except the claimant witness in MAC Case No.28/2014 who is also the claimant in MAC Case No.112/2014 as she was the person who was injured during the accident and was the eye witness to the accident. In her evidence on affidavit, she categorically stated the following at paragraph Nos.5 & 6 which is reproduced herein under:- “5. I state that there was road divider mark in white paints all along the road. In her evidence on affidavit, she categorically stated the following at paragraph Nos.5 & 6 which is reproduced herein under:- “5. I state that there was road divider mark in white paints all along the road. However, while negotiating the curve of the road towards its right, the offending bus took the entire space of the road meant for the opposite coming vehicles in such a sharp curve of the road, and without any application of brake and in high speed hit at the opposite coming Maruti Gypsy. It is correct that from a distance of about 40/50 ft., in the sharp curve of the road to our left, we saw the offending bus coming by the wrong side of the road occupying the entire space meant for our vehicle to go. It is also correct that on our left, there was no open space in the roadside and the thick forest bushes have grown covering right up to the pucca portion of the road. On our left, the roadside was also stiff cliff and driving out to the roadside would certainly result to falling into the deep gorge below. Thus, under extreme situation, the Maruti Gypsy in which we were travelling instantly stopped on the extreme left side of the road. However, within flash of second, the opposite coming offending bus came with high speed and hit at the Maruti Gypsy by the front right hand side body of the bus. The site Sketch Map of the place of occurrence of the accident showing the direction of both the vehicles as well as the description of the place of occurrence of the accident filed with the claim application is marked Exhibit P-1, which is also marked Exhibit P-6 in MAC Case No.28 of 2014. 6. I state that at the time of the accident, besides late Mr. Y. Nyitong Phom, the owner/driver of the Maruti Gypsy, my deceased daughter was sitting in the front seat, and late Mr. I. Nungsangkaba Phom and myself were sitting in the rear seats. Thus, in the accident, all the other three occupants of the Maruti Gypsy sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot of the accident. I am the only surviving victims of the accident, however, as I sustained serious injuries, I became unconscious right after the accident.” 13. I. Nungsangkaba Phom and myself were sitting in the rear seats. Thus, in the accident, all the other three occupants of the Maruti Gypsy sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot of the accident. I am the only surviving victims of the accident, however, as I sustained serious injuries, I became unconscious right after the accident.” 13. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the cross-examination of the said claimant witness. Upon being cross-examined, the said witness about the accident, she not only stood to her statements made in her evidence-in- chief, but also categorically stated that the driver of the Maruti Gypsy saw the bus was coming towards his side and he stopped the Maruti Gypsy vehicle. She also stated in her cross-examination that “since the bus hit our vehicle, so I presumed the bus had not applied the brake”. 14. The above aspect therefore makes it very clear that although there was no specific issue as regards rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing re-assigned registration No.AS-05-B-6537 originally registered as NL-04-B-0550, however, the parties therein were much aware and accordingly evidence was also adduced and cross-examination was also carried out in that regard. This Court also finds it very relevant to take note of the observations and opinion of the learned Tribunal in respect to Issue No.(i) and Issue No.(iii) wherein the learned Tribunal opined on the basis of evidence that the driver of the Maruti Gypsy stopped the vehicle when he saw the bus coming and the Maruti Gypsy could not go further to the left side of the road as there was a steep cliff there. It was also the finding of facts that after the Maruti Gypsy had stopped, the bus came in high speed and hit it. The findings so arrived at by the learned Tribunal not only discusses on the issue of rash and negligent driving which resulted into the accident on 10.09.2013, but it is also a finding based on the materials on record and no perversity in that regard could be shown. 15. This Court at this stage also finds it relevant to take note of that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 118 of the Act of 1988, the Central Government had made a set of Regulations namely The Rules of Road Regulations, 1989. 15. This Court at this stage also finds it relevant to take note of that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 118 of the Act of 1988, the Central Government had made a set of Regulations namely The Rules of Road Regulations, 1989. Regulation 2 is relevant for the purpose of the instant case in as much as it stipulates that the driver of a motor vehicle shall drive the vehicle close to the left side of the road as may be expedient and shall allow all traffic which is proceeding in the opposite side to pass on the right hand side. 16. Taking into account the above, this Court is of the opinion that the first ground of objection so taken in respect to the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2020 cannot be sustained in law. 17. The second ground of objection so taken is that the Tribunal had relied upon a sketch map in the impugned judgment. 18. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the perusal of the impugned judgment is not solely based upon the said sketch map, but specifically relied upon the eyewitness who was present, i.e. the evidence of the claimant in MAC Case No.112/2014. Under such circumstances, merely taking into consideration the sketch map cannot be a ground to nullify the said impugned judgment and order. 19. The third ground of objection which has been taken is on the question of not impleading the owner/driver of the Maruti Gypsy which was involved in the said accident. 20. It is relevant to take note of that the owner/driver of the Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No.NL-03-2658 had also expired in the said accident dated 10.09.2013 and his legal representatives filed the claim petition being MAC Case No.30/2014. At paragraph No.8 of the said claim application, it was categorically mentioned that the deceased was the owner/driver of the Maruti Gypsy and the claimants were the legal representatives of the said deceased. The written statement filed by the respondent who is the appellant herein have not denied the said aspect. Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal had categorically took up the said issue as Issue No.(i) and held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the Maruti Gypsy requiring the Maruti Gypsy to be made a party. The written statement filed by the respondent who is the appellant herein have not denied the said aspect. Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal had categorically took up the said issue as Issue No.(i) and held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the Maruti Gypsy requiring the Maruti Gypsy to be made a party. Nothing has been shown before this Court that the said findings in respect of the Issue No.(i) is perverse and is not based upon evidence. 21. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the grounds of objections which have been taken to the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2020 passed in MAC Case No. 28/2014, MAC Case No. 29/2014, MAC Case No. 30/2014 and MAC Case No. 112/2014 cannot be sustained in law. 22. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant Appeals for which the Appeals stand dismissed. 23. Records be returned. 24. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.