R S R T C Thr Chief Manager vs Naveen Bugaliya And Anr

Rajasthan High Court

R S R T C Thr Chief Manager vs Naveen Bugaliya And Anr on 7 May, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:21365]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2314/2017

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation R.s.r.t.c. Through
Chief Manager, Sikar Depot, District, Owner Of Vehicle Bus No.
Rj-01-Pa-0949
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.       Naveen Bugaliya S/o Shri Vijendra Singh, R/o Gidaniya,
         Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu Raj.
2.       Mohan Singh S/o Shri Rood Singh, R/o Doondiya Post
         Bagot Peelwa, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur Raj. Driver
         Of Vehicle Bus No. Rj-01-Pa-0949
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Ms. Tabassum Joad, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Akshat Chaudhary, Adv.


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
                       Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                                  07/05/2024


      The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-non-claimant (for

short 'the RSRTC') aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

21.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (for

short 'The Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.296/2014 "titled as

Naveen Bugaliya Vs. Mohan Singh & Anr.", whereby the Tribunal

has partly awarded a sum of Rs.8,15,600/- along with interest @

7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as

compensation in favour of the claimant.

      Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal

while passing the impugned judgment & award has failed to

appreciate the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the


                     (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:01 PM)
                                    [2024:RJ-JP:21365]                    (2 of 2)                    [CMA-2314/2017]



                                   RSRTC further submitted that respondent was going on the

                                   motorcycle and due to his negligence accident was occurred.

                                         Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that the

                                   Tribunal had wrongly considered the disability of the respondent

                                   as 60%. So, the judgment and award of the Tribunal may be

                                   modified accordingly.

                                           Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

                                   arguments advanced by learned counsel for the RSRTC and

                                   submits that the respondent had suffered 80% disability, as per

                                   disability certificate (Exhibit-31A) but the Tribunal had considered

                                   60% disability. So, finding of the Tribunal did not require any

                                   interference. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable

                                   to be dismissed.

                                         I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

                                   counsel for the RSRTC as well as learned counsel for the

                                   respondent.

While allowing the claim petition the Tribunal had elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties and rightly held RSRTC liable to pay the quantum of compensation. As per disability certificate (Exhibit 31A) the respondent had suffered 80% permanent disability but the Tribunal had considered it as 60% in relation to whole body. So, in my considered opinion, findings of the Tribunal does not require any interference. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /07 (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:44:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)