Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Sushila
2021 Latest Caselaw 10594 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1782/2019

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through General Manager Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Depot Manager Churu (Raj.) (Bus Owner)

----Appellants Versus

1. Sushila W/o Late Kaluram, R/o Damamiyo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 12, Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

2. Harnandi D/o Late Kaluram, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sushila. R/o Damamiyo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 12, Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

3. Shiv Kumar S/o Late Kaluram, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sushila. R/o Damamiyo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 12, Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

4. Mohit S/o Late Kaluram, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sushila. R/o Damamiyo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 12, Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

5. Laxmi Devi W/o Rampal, R/o Damamiyo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 12, Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

6. Rampal S/o Narayanram, R/o Damamiyo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 12, Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

7. Gulab Singh S/o Shri Cahndaram, R/o Mundi Tal, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.) (Driver)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Loon Karan Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikash Bijarnia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

12/07/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award

dated 28.03.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,

(2 of 4) [CMA-1782/2019]

Rajgarh, District - Churu, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a

sum of Rs.11,41,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of application.

The application was filed by legal representatives of one -

Kaluram inter alia with the submissions that on 14.11.2015 at

about 11:40 am Kaluram alongwith Sunil Kumar were walking on

the road when the offending vehicle being driven by its driver -

Gulab Singh rashly and negligently struck Kaluram on account of

which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to which he

succumbed. It was claimed that the deceased - Kaluram was aged

35 years and was working as a mechanic who earned Rs.18,000/-

per month. Based on the said submissions compensation was

sought to be tune of Rs.79,45,000/-.

The application for compensation was contested by the

appellants and the driver inter alia with the submissions that the

accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving by

the driver. It was claimed that the accident occurred on account of

the negligence of deceased - Kaluram, who probably with the

intention to commit suicide, came under the rear tyre of the bus

and as such, it was prayed that the application for compensation

be dismissed.

Based on the averments made by the parties, the Tribunal

framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants two witnesses were

examined and 22 documents were exhibited and on behalf of the

defendants two witnesses were examined.

After hearing the parties the Tribunal came to the conclusion

that the theory propounded by the defendants regarding the

deceased - Kaluram attempting suicide, which resulted in the

accident, had no basis and that the accident occurred on account

(3 of 4) [CMA-1782/2019]

of rash and negligent driving by driver of the bus and after

assessing the quantum of compensation based on judgments of

Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded the compensation as noticed

here-in-before.

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that

the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the

accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by

driver of the bus. It was submitted that admittedly the deceased -

Kaluram came under the rear tyre of the bus and as such, it was

apparent that he intended to commit suicide and, therefore, the

finding recorded deserves to be set aside and the compensation

awarded deserves to be quashed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellants and have perused the material available on

record.

The bare perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court, it

is apparent that the trial court after assessing the oral evidence

led by the parties came to a categorical conclusion that the

accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by

driver of the bus.

The plea raised by the appellant regarding deceased -

Kaluram attempting to commit suicide only based on the fact that

he came under the rear tyre, apparently has no basis as it is not

the case of the appellants that the deceased - Kaluram lay in front

of the rear tyre of the stationary bus, which on bus moving

resulted in the accident. Admittedly, the accident has occurred

while the bus was in motion and, therefore, the claim that the

deceased - Kaluram attempted suicide, which resulted in his

coming under the rear wheel of the bus apparently is baseless.

(4 of 4) [CMA-1782/2019]

The suggestion given in the cross-examination to Sunil, who was

with the deceased that the deceased was drunk and came under

the front wheel of the bus, essentially takes away the plea raised

by the appellants.

In view thereof, the finding recorded by the Tribunal, does

not call for any interference. No other point was argued by learned

counsel for the appellants.

In view of the discussion, there is no substance in the

appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 12-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)