Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Norati Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 6328 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3672/2019

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara (Raj.) (Owner)

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Ramghani W/o Late Satyanarayan Keer,

2. Miss Jayshri Keer D/o Late Satyanarayan Keer,

3. Miss Nikita D/o Late Satyanarayan Keer, (Respondent No.3 Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ramghani.) All R/o Pipalaj, Thana Sanwar, Tehsil Sanwar, District Ajmer (Raj.) Claimants.

4. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwarlal, B/c Khatik, R/o Sindhi Colony, Vijay Nagar, At Present Driver Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara (Raj.) (Driver)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3524/2019 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation., Through Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Norati Devi W/o Late Gokal Singh Solanki,

2. Miss Rajnandani D/o Late Gokal Singh Solanki,

3. Yuvraj Singh S/o Late Gokal Singh Solanki, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Norati Devi.

4. Jaysingh S/o Sukhdev Singh Solanki,

5. Smt. Durgadevi W/o Jaysingh Solanki, (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Norati Devi).

All R/o Pipalaj, Thana Sanwar, Tehsil Sanwar, District Ajmer (Raj.) Claimants.

(2 of 5) [CMA-3672/2019]

6. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, B/c Khatik, R/o Sindhi Colony, Vijay Nagar, At Present Driver Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara (Raj.) (Driver)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3526/2019 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara (Raj.) (Owner)

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Late Asharam Garg,

2. Miss Khushaboo Garg D/o Late Asharam Garg,

3. Rahul Garg S/o Late Asharam Garg,

4. Miss Varsha Garg D/o Late Asharam Garg,

5. Smt. Rampyari W/o Late Bhura Garg, (Respondent Nos.2 to 4 minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Savitri Devi) All R/o Pipalaj, Thana Sanwar, Tehsil Sanwar, District Ajmer (Raj.) Claimants.

6. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, B/c Khatik, R/o Sindhi Colony, Vijay Nagar, At Present Driver Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara (Raj.) (Driver)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Loon Karan Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushkar Taimini on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Nahar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment

03/03/2021

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is being heard finally at this stage.

All the three appeals are decided by this common judgment,

as the same arise out of the common judgment and award dated

31/07/2019.

(3 of 5) [CMA-3672/2019]

The present appeals have been preferred against the

judgment and award dated 31/07/2019 passed by Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal No.2, Bhilwara in Motor Accident Claims Case

Nos.939/2018(625/2017), 940/2018(627/2017) & 941/2018

(626/2017).

Brief facts of the case are that on 02/10/2017,

Satyanarayan, Asharam and Gokul Singh were going from

Bhilwara to their Village Pipalaj on Motorcycle bearing registration

No. RJ-48-SA-5627. When they reached Mali Khera Turn,

appellant's bus bearing registration No.RJ-06-PA-2461 came from

opposite side being driven by its driver rashly and negligently

dashed the motorcycle. Due to said accident, they all died. Three

separate Claim petitions were preferred by the Claimants before

the Tribunal.

The Tribunal after framing the issues, adjudicating the

evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly

allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the

claimants as mentioned in the impugned judgments.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, while

assailing the validity of the judgment & award dated 31/07/2019,

vehemently argued that the finding of the Tribunal recorded on

issue No.1 is very casual and totally non-speaking. He submits

that no evidence was produced from the claimants' side

establishing the fact that the driver of the appellant's bus was

negligent. In the absence of any cogent testimony, the Tribunal

erred while recording the findings on issue No.1 against the

present appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the

(4 of 5) [CMA-3672/2019]

Tribunal, while computing the award, has also not taken into

consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 680 in the correct perspective and has thus

awarded the sum in excess.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that

the Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire evidence and

has correctly evaluated the same while arriving at the finding on

issue No.1. He further submits the site plan prepared by the Police

during the course of investigation clearly reflects that the bus was

being driven on the other side of the road i.e. on the right side

and dashed with the motorcycle which was coming from the

opposite direction. Relying upon the site plan, learned counsel

submits that the bus was required to be driven on the left side of

the road, whereas bus travelled beyond the mid-line and after

shifting on the opposite side of the road, hit the motorcycle

coming from the opposite direction. Thus, a plain reading of the

site plan prepared by the police clearly shows that the bus was

being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. He submits that

the finding recorded on issue No.1 is, therefore, correct and does

not suffer from any infirmity.

Learned counsel contends that while computing the award in

the present case, the Tribunal has correctly taken into

consideration the various factors in accordance with the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi(supra) and in view of the evidence

adduced before the Tribunal, the income and other factors are also

just and proper. He, therefore, prays that the judgment dated

31/07/2019 does not require any interference by this Court.

(5 of 5) [CMA-3672/2019]

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the impugned judgment as well as other relevant

record of the case.

A perusal of the site plan clearly shows that the bus was

being travelled beyond the mid-line and after shifting on the

opposite side of the road, hit the motorcycle coming from the

opposite direction. Therefore, the negligence of the bus driver has

rightly been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while

adjudicating issue No.1. Needless to say that the bus was required

to be driven on the left side of the road. Merely because no

evidence was produced by the claimants, the assessment of the

factual situation done by the Tribunal cannot be assumed to be

wrong. The site plan clearly reflects the negligence of the driver of

the bus which has been taken note of by the Tribunal, while

deciding the issue No.1. Therefore, the finding recorded by the

Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court. The same

is, therefore, upheld.

As far as the computation of the amount in the present cases

is concerned, this Court finds that the Tribunal after relying upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi(supra) and the

various factors in the present case, rightly awarded the

compensation in the present cases.

In view of the discussions made above, the appeals lack

merit. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 4-6/SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)