R.S.R.T.C. Barmer vs Smt.Rajni And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 15989 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3882/2011

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur through Chief Manager, Barmer Depot (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. Sush. Rajani D/o Ramchandra, by caste Khandelwal, age 19 years, resident of Barmer.

2. Lekhraj S/o Ramchandra, by caste Khandelwal, age 29 years, resident of Barmer.

3. Jagdish Prasad S/o Narsingha Ram, resident of Kolu, P.S. Baitu, District Barmer.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. P.R. Singh
For Respondent(s)         :



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                Judgment

22/10/2021

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (afterwards referred to as the 'M.V. Act') has been

preferred by the appellant - RSRTC for setting aside the award

dated 22.10.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Balotra (afterwards referred to as 'Tribunal') in MAC Case

No.131/2007, whereby, a sum of Rs. 3,42,000/- alongwith interest

@ 9% per annum has been awarded to the respondents-claimants

under Section 163A of the M.V. Act.

Brief facts of the case are that deceased - Ranmal alias

Dharmendra had died in a road accident. Claimants Rajni and

Lekhraj are sister & brother of deceased. As per averments made

(2 of 3) [CMA-3882/2011]

in the claim petition their mother & father had already died.

Claimants were dependent on the deceased. It was averred that

deceased was earning Rs. 48,000/- annually.

After hearing both the parties, learned Tribunal decided the

claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,42,000/- alongwith

interest @ 9% per annum against the driver and owner - RSRTC

of the offending vehicle, respectively.

Aggrieved against the impugned award, appellant - RSRTC

has preferred this appeal on the ground that learned Tribunal

erred in coming to the conclusion that the annual income of the

deceased was Rs. 40,000/-. There is no evidence on record to

prove income of the deceased. It was further contended that no

evidence with regard to dependency of claimants on the deceased

was shown. Learned Tribunal has not considered this important

aspect of the matter. Appellant - RSRTC has also raised a ground

regarding contributory negligence of deceased in the accident. It

was prayed that the award passed by learned Tribunal be set

aside.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant at admission stage

and perused the material available on record.

Impugned award has been passed under the provisions of

Section 163A of the M.V. Act. A bare perusal of provisions of

Section 163A of the M.V. Act reveals that in any claim under this

provision the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish

that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the

claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or

default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any

other person. Hence, while deciding the claim petition under

Section 163A of the M.V. Act negligence of driver of the offending

(3 of 3) [CMA-3882/2011]

vehicle is not relevant. As it has been averred in the claim

petition that the claimants are sister and brother of deceased,

whose parents had already died, therefore, learned Tribunal has

not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the

claimants were dependent on deceased.

Learned Tribunal has not committed any error while

accepting the averments made in the affidavit regarding income of

the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- annually.

Appellant failed to make out any case for admission of the

appeal.

Consequently, the present appeal filed by appellant - RSRTC

is dismissed at admission stage.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

2-AK Chouhan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)