HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1174/2021
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Depot
Hindaun City, District Karauli, Raj. Through Manager
Transport, Hindaun City.
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Chief Manager, Head Office Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar S/o Bharatlal Meena, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Dedroli, Tehsil Hindaun City District Karauli Raj.
2. Deewan Singh S/o Atarsingh Jat, Resident Of Kalsada,
Thana Gadi Baajna, District Bharatpur, Raj. Presently
Driver Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Depot
Hindaun City. (Driver Bus No. RJ-05P-1416)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr.V. P. Mathur, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
02/08/2021
This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the award dated 28.01.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Hindaun City, District Karauli (hereafter 'the MACT') in Claim Petition No.102/2013 whereby claim petition filed by the claimant has partly been allowed and a sum of Rs.5,46,200/- along-with interest @ 7% has been passed in favour of the claimant.
Learned counsel for the appellants Mr.V.P. Mathur submitted that in response to claim petition for alleged accident, written statement was filed on behalf of the appellants wherein the accident itself was disputed and specific stand was taken as there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle of the Corporation--Appellants.
(Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:25:06 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-1174/2021] Learned counsel submitted that the fact of accident, on a small village road, was specifically pleaded, whereby the injured claimant was also required to be vigilant and since there was head on collision with the bus of the Corporation, the contributory negligence of the injured was also to be taken note of.
Learned counsel submitted that the impugned award is challenged primarily on the two grounds i.e. negligence and quantum.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below has wrongly come to conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the appellants.
Learned counsel submitted that the admitted fact in the present case was in respect of claimant driving a motorcycle and another motorcycle was also alleged to be going whereby two persons were sitting on the said motorcycle.
Learned counsel submitted that the evidence laid by the claimant proved that the claimant himself was responsible and negligent in driving the motorcycle and he had hit the bus while driving the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and further since the alleged accident was head on collision, the entire negligence issue could not have been fastened on the Driver of the appellant-Corporation.
Learned counsel further submitted that burden of proving the accident due to negligence of driver of the appellants was on the claimant and since, he failed to discharge the same, liability could not have been fastened on the appellants.
Learned counsel submitted that the other issue is with regard to quantum/amount of compensation given to claimant. (Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:25:06 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-1174/2021] Learned counsel submitted that injured claimant was 24 years of age and the amount which is given to him by applying the multiplier of 18 and same was not required to be applied.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the Court below in para 11 of its judgment has specifically recorded a finding that the appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their case.
This Court finds that opportunity has been afforded to the appellants to lead evidence and merely by filing written statement, the stand taken by appellants cannot be proved.
This Court finds that if the factum of accident was disputed by the appellants and further plea of contributory negligence was also taken, it was incumbent on the appellants to lead proper evidence.
This Court finds that in absence of any evidence being led by the appellants on important issue of negligence of driver, the Court below has rightly come to conclusion that it was the driver of the appellants-Corporation who was negligent in driving the bus.
This Court further finds that the claimant had produced documentary evidence before the Court below to prove that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation.
This Court finds that the injured claimant had produced himself as AW-1 and he specifically pleaded that the driver of the appellants bus was driving the vehicle on wrong side and he was hit by the bus.
(Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:25:06 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-1174/2021] This Court has no reason to disbelieve the injured claimant and in view of oral statement as well as documentary evidence, no fault can be found with the finding of the Court below in respect of issue no.1 relating to negligence of driver of bus in causing the accident.
The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that the amount/quantum is also not evaluated properly, suffice it to say by this Court that injured claimant is said to be 24 years old boy and his future prospects in respect of his employment etc. has also been kept in mind.
This Court finds that the Court below has taken into account the offer of employment of the claimant as Technician Grade-III in Central Reserve Police Force and further the Court below has also considered that the injured was Class-IV employee working on temporary basis in pay-scale of 5200-20200 Grade Pay
--1800.
This Court finds that since the injured was employed and was also having bright future, no fault can be found with the amount of compensation, which has been awarded.
The Court below also kept in mind the principle laid down by the Apex Court in awarding compensation and as such, no illegality is found in the award passed by the MACT.
Accordingly, the present misc. appeal stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J Himanshu Soni/Parul/7 (Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:25:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)