Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R.S.R.T.C vs Motilal And Ors (2024:Rj-Jd:9832) on 26 February, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:9832]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1064/2004
R.S.R.T.C.
----Appellant
Versus
Smt.vimla And Ors.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1056/2004
R.S.R.T.C.
----Appellant
Versus
Smt.premkuwar And Ors.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1057/2004
R.S.R.T.C.
----Appellant
Versus
Motilal And Ors.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1058/2004
R.S.R.T.C.
----Appellant
Versus
Mansingh And Ors.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1062/2004
R.S.R.T.C.
----Appellant
Versus
Smt.manbai And Ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.K. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Dadhich
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment 26/02/2024
1. The present appeals under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') have been preferred by the appellant RSRTC against the judgment/award dated 17.10.2003 (Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 08:36:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9832] (2 of 7) [CMA-1064/2004] passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos.1063/1999, 948/1999, 544/1999, 542/1999 and 541/1999 whereby the claim petitions as preferred by the respective claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 have been partly allowed and an award for an amount of Rs.35,000/-, Rs.52,000/-, Rs.31,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.32,000/- respectively with interest @6% per annum from the date of application has been passed in favour of the claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.1999, the claimants were travelling from Udaipur to Neemuch in the appellant corporation bus bearing registration No.RJ14-G-2531 and at about 6 AM, when they reached near Dabok, a truck bearing registration No.RJ14-G-3440 was standing amidst the road facing the way towards Dabok without any parking lights or indicators and as the bus was also being driven rashly and negligently, the bus hit the truck and resultantly, the claimants suffered grievous injuries.
3. The claimants preferred claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 qua the grievous injuries suffered by them. The learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, awarded aforestated compensation in favour of the respective claimant-respondent No.1. Further, on the aspect of extent of liability, the learned Tribunal observed that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent and the ratio of negligence of bus driver and truck driver was assessed to be 80:20 respectively. Aggrieved by the said judgment/award, the appellant corporation has preferred the present appeals.
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 08:36:41 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9832] (3 of 7) [CMA-1064/2004]
4. The present appeals have been preferred on behalf of appellant corporation on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of appellant corporation bus liable to the extent of 80% and driver of truck of respondent No.2 to the extent of 20% whereas since the truck was standing amidst the road in stationary position without any parking lights or indicators, the entire liability or in any case, substantial liability should have been of the truck driver.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the finding as arrived by the learned Tribunal.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. In the present case, the quantum of compensation is not under challenge and hence, the notices of the appeal were also issued only to the extent of issue of liability. Therefore, the point that arises for determination before this Court is firstly, whether the driver of the truck was also compositely negligent for the accident and secondly, if yes, to what extent ?
8. What can be concluded from a perusal of the Site Inspection Report/Naksha Mauka (Exhibit-2) is that the truck involved in the present accident first met with an accident with one other truck. Because of the said accident, both the trucks were stationed in the middle of the road facing Dabok (Udaipur). As the second truck bearing registration No.RJ14-G-3540 did not have any indicators or parking lights on, the driver of the bus could not, from a distance of 10 feet, see the said truck and even though he applied the brakes, the bus however, hit the truck from behind. Devi Lal (Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 08:36:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9832] (4 of 7) [CMA-1064/2004] (NAW1), driver of the bus, specifically deposed that it was foggy on that day and there being no indicators/back lights of the said truck lit, the truck was not visible from a long distance and hence, despite his applying the brakes, he could not avoid the bus hitting the truck.
9. The fact that the truck was hit by the bus from behind is evident from the Mechanical Report which reflected that the front portion of the bus was damaged and its body from the driver side was dented. Further, the front mirrors of both the truck and the bus were damaged. Meaning thereby, the said truck hit the first truck from back and then the bus hit the second truck.
10. Taking into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses and the Naksha Mauka (Exhibit-2), it is clear that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner but then it is also clear that the indicators, back lights and parking lights of the truck had not been put on to indicate that the truck, which had already met with an accident, was stationed in the middle of the road. Hence, the version of the driver of the bus seems to be plausible as the accident occurred on 30.01.1999 i.e. a winter morning and it must have been foggy at around 6-7 A.M., due to which the visibility was hampered.
11. The learned Tribunal also concluded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of the bus and the stationary truck however, fixed the liability of driver of bus and truck in the ratio of 80:20 respectively. But it is evident from both the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record that the accident occurred not only because of the negligent driving of the (Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 08:36:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9832] (5 of 7) [CMA-1064/2004] driver of bus but also due to negligence of the driver of truck who did not take the precautionary steps he was required to. Therefore, it is a clear case of composite negligence on part of the driver of bus as well as of truck and extent of their negligence was completely equal i.e. 50:50.
12. As both the drivers have erred and contributed equally in causing the accident, the principle of composite negligence would definitely apply in the present case. The said principle was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 748 wherein it was held as under:
"6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them."
13. While addressing the point regarding fixation of liability on non-usage of parking light/indicator by stationary vehicle, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Anusha and Ors. vs. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.6237 of 2021 (decided on 06.10.2021), observed as under:
"11. The first grievance of the Appellants about the finding of contributory negligence is liable to be sustained for three reasons namely, (i) that even according to the Tribunal and the High Court, the spot where the lorry was parked, as indicated in Exhibits P-1 to P-6 (FIR, complaint, spot magazar etc.) and Exhibit P-22 (spot sketch), was not a parking place; (ii) that (Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 08:36:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9832] (6 of 7) [CMA-1064/2004] according to the High court, the driver of the lorry ought to have parked the vehicle on the left side of the road by giving proper indication/signal, but it was not done; and (iii) that as per the finding of the High court, the accident occurred at about 4.30 A.M. when the lighting should have been poor."
14. Further, Hon'ble the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohini Mohanrao Salunke vs. Ramdas Hanumant Jadhav, First Appeal No.569 of 2022 (decided on 18.10.2022), while discussing the relevant rules of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 pertaining to parking light, observed as under:
"11. It is significant to note that, driver of the offending tempo has not examined any witness to prove that, he had put on the tail lamp or indicators of the offending tempo. Latur Ambejogai road is highway. The accident is happened at 10:00 p.m. when offending tempo was stationed in middle of the road. It was duty of the driver of the offending tempo to put indicators or parking light of the offending tempo in on condition, so other vehicles could know about stationed tempo but it has come on record that, no such precautions were taken by driver of the offending tempo. When any vehicle stationed on the road at night time, as per Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 proper precautions are necessary to be taken. It reads thus:
[109. Parking light: [[Every construction equipment vehicle, combine harvester and motor vehicle] and every motor vehicle other than motor cycles and three wheeled invalid carriages shall be provided with one white or amber parking light on each side in the front. In addition to the front lights, two red parking lights one on each side in the rear shall be provided. The front and rear parking lights shall remain lit even when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road:
Provided that these rear lamps can be the same as the rear lamps referred to in rule 105 sub-rule (2):
[Provided also that construction equipment vehicles [and combined harvesters], which are installed with food light lamps or sport lights at the front, rear or side of the vehicle for their off- highway or construction operations, shall have separate control for such lamps or lights and these shall be permanently switched off when the vehicle is travelling on the road.] (Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 08:36:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9832] (7 of 7) [CMA-1064/2004] This rule states that, front and rear parking lights shall remain lit when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road."
15. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, herein also, it is no one's case that the parking lights/indicators of the bus were lit. Rather no evidence has been led on behalf of the truck driver/owner or its insurer. Meaning thereby the fact that the lights of the truck were not lit, has not been disputed on record and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the driver of the bus.
16. In view of the overall analysis of the factual matrix of the present case and the aforementioned ratio, this Court is of the clear opinion that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of the drivers of bus and truck and both are equally liable. Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and Award is modified to the extent of the liability fixed. The liability of the appellant corporation and respondent Nos.2 & 3 is apportioned to be 50:50.
17. Stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 314 to 318-AbhishekK/Devanshi/vij-
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 08:36:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)