Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Parasram Chaudhary S/O Shri Ram ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2330 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1114/2019

1.      Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Through
        C.m.d. (Owner Of Bus No. Rj-01-Pa-1486)

2.      Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer Depot
        Through Depot Manager (Owner Of Bus No. Rj-01-Pa-1486)
        Having Its Head Office At Parivahan House, Parivahan Marg,
        Chomu House, Jaipur Raj. Both Are Represented Through Their
        Officer Incharge.

                                                                  ----Appellants

                                    Versus

1.      Parasram Chaudhary S/o Shri Ram Kumar Chaudhary, Aged
        About 47 Years, R/o House No. D-3, Sarkari Awas, Police
        Station Kunhadi, Kota.

2.      Smt. Sharimila Chaudhary W/o Parasram Chaudhary, Aged
        About 43 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o House No. D-3, Sarkari
        Awas, Police Station Kunhadi, Kota.

3.      Pratap Lal Meena S/o Shri Ramdev, R/o Jawra, Police Station
        Sawar, District Ajmer (Driver Of Bus No. Rj-01-Pa-1486)

                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv.(through video conference) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Sharma, Adv.(through video conference)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

15/04/2021

I.A. No.01/2020:-

Learned counsel for the respondents/applicants does not

want to press this application.

Therefore, this application is dismissed as withdrawn as not

pressed.

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1114/2019:-

(2 of 3) [CMA-1114/2019]

The present appeal is finally decided with the consent

of learned counsel for the parties.

The present appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and award dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1, Kota (for short "The Tribunal")

whereby respondents were directed to pay Rs.14,02,896/- with

interest @ 6% per annum from 08.02.2018.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

Tribunal while deciding the issue relating to negligence has not

taken into consideration the fact that the accident was occurred

due to sole negligence of the deceased himself. Learned counsel

for the appellants further submitted that the Investigating Officer

had not come in the witness-box. So, negligence cannot be

attributed to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants

also submitted that the appellants examined it's conductor who

had clearly stated that the accident was occurred due to sole

negligence of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants

again submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the

income of the deceased at Rs.6810/- per month in absence of any

documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants further

submits that the Tribunal ought to have assessed Rs.15,000/- per

annum as per notional income.

Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that

the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding 40% of the assessed

income towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the

appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in

deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses instead of 1/2

amount because the deceased was unmarried.

(3 of 3) [CMA-1114/2019]

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and

submitted that the respondents had filed cross appeal for

enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel for the

respondents further submitted that the deceased was also doing

part time job and getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. So their

salary be calculated Rs. 10,810/-. Learned counsel for the

respondents also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in

awarding the meagre amount towards loss of love and affection

and also submitted that interest of 18% per annum be awarded.

I have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

The Tribunal in its order rightly decided negligently of

the appellant. No need to examine the Investigating Officer in the

claim petition. The Tribunal while deciding the income of the

deceased rightly calculated the income of the deceased as per the

notification of the minimum wages and rightly awarded the 40%

as future prospects.

The Tribunal in its order clearly stated that the

respondents were solely dependent on deceased. So, the Tribunal

has not made any mistake in deducting income as 1/3rd of the

personal expenses of the deceased.

So, in view of the above discussions, I find no illegality

or infirmity in the learned Tribunal's order, so, present appeal is

devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, the present appeal stands dismissed. Stay

application stands disposed of accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/35

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)