Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Pawan Kumar S/O Bharatlal Meena on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
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.
(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.
(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.
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
