General Manager Rajasthan State ... vs Sonu
2022 Latest Caselaw 8081 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 429/2019

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

2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sriganganagar Depot, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) (Bus Owner)

----Appellants Versus

1. Sonu D/o Saffi Mohammad, B/c Musalman Through Her Natural Guardian Father Saffi Mohammad, R/o Kuchilpura, Opposite Mahila Mandal School, Bikaner (Raj.)

2. Liladhar S/o Shri Kishanaram, B/c Kumhar, R/o Harisinghpura, P.s. Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) (Driver)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 428/2019 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Through Chief Manager, Sriganganagar Depot, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) (Bus Owner)

----Appellant Versus

1. Fataram S/o Shri Ramchandra, B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Palana, Tehsil And District Bikaner (Raj.)

2. Liladhar S/o Shri Kishanaram, B/c Kumhar, R/o Harisinghpura, P.s. Rajiyasar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.) (Driver)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 430/2019

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

2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sriganganagar Depot, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) (Bus Owner)

----Appellants Versus

(2 of 6)

1. Bano W/o Shyamdeen, B/c Musalman, R/o Kuchilpura, Opposite Mahila Mandal School, Bikaner (Raj.)

2. Liladhar S/o Shri Kishanaram, B/c Kumhar, R/o Harisinghpura, P.s. Rajiyasar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.) (Driver)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Judgment

/05/2022

The instant appeals have been filed by the appellants against

the judgment & award dated 01.11.2018 passed by Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (afterwards referred as

'Tribunal') in MAC Nos.256/2006 (882/2014), 381/2006

(883/2014) & 255/2006 (881/2014), whereby, the Tribunal has

awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,500/-, Rs. 22,306/- & Rs. 19,100/-

respectively alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of

application i.e. 24.06.2006.

As above appeals arise from common judgment, the same

are being decided by common judgment.

The claim petition was filed by the claimants -Smt. Bano,

Sonu & Fataram with the averments that on 12.11.2005 at about

02:00 PM they were going on Camel Cart from Palana village to

Bikaner; when they reached 15 kms. near to Bikaner at 03:00 AM,

a Bus bearing registration No. RJ13-P-3397, being driven rashly &

negligently by its driver, came from behind and hit the Camel

Cart; resultantly camel died on the spot and Smt. Bano, Sonu and

Fataram sustained grievous injuries, for which, claimants claimed

(3 of 6)

compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-, Rs. 2,27,000/-&

Rs. 7,50,000/- respectively.

The claim petition was opposed by the appellants herein with

the averments that the accident took place on account of rash &

negligent driving by the driver of Camel Cart; the Bus was going

on its right side; the Camel Cart was being driven in the middle of

the road and was heavily loaded with the bags of cluster beans. A

Truck came from the opposite side and on account of high beam

lights of Truck, Camel Cart got unbalanced, resultantly, bags fell

on the Camel Cart and collided with the bus; it was further

averred that the Bus was not being driven rashly & negligently and

the accident was result of the negligence on the part of Cart

driver.

The Tribunal framed six issues; on behalf of claimants four

witnesses were examined, whereas non-claimants examined two

witnesses. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal while holding

the non-claimants liable for the accident awarded aforesaid

compensation in favour of claimants.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that

the Tribunal erred in recording finding that the Bus was being

driven rashly & negligently by its driver; the said finding was

based on assumption. It was submitted that the evidence has not

been considered in right perspective. No independent eye witness

has been examined on behalf of the claimants.

It was further submitted that the accident took place due to

negligence on the part of Cart driver; a bare perusal of the site

plan and statements of witnesses go to show that Bus driver was

not solely responsible for the accident, therefore, the award

impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(4 of 6)

On the contrary, learned counsel for the claimants submits

that the accident was the result of rash & negligent driving of the

Bus driver. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just & fair and

need not be interfered with.

Considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the

parties and perused the record.

Regarding rash & negligent driving, it is not in dispute that

the Bus collided to back side of the Camel Cart. As per statement

of the Bus driver since no reflectors were affixed on the Camel

Cart, on account of high beam lights of the Truck, coming from

opposite side, he could not see the Cart going on ahead of him. He

also stated that the Camel Cart was running in middle of the road.

As per his defence, on account of high beam lights of the Truck,

the Camel Cart became imbalance and collided with the Bus. He

admitted that he could see the Camel Cart only when the Bus

reached near the Camel Cart. The Bus conductor also reiterated

the statement made by the Bus driver.

After considering the evidence, this Court is of the opinion

that the Tribunal did not commit any error in fastening liability of

the accident on Roadways Bus driver. The Roadways Bus driver

was under an obligation to drive the Bus with more caution and

control. The time of accident was mid of the night. The speed of

the Bus should be to the extent that the driver could stop the Bus

when required. Whereas, from the statement of Bus driver it is

evident that he failed to control the Bus after seeing that the

Camel Cart was going ahead of him in the same direction. The

defence of the Bus driver is not acceptable. It is true that the

accident could be avoided if reflectors were affixed on the back

side of Camel Cart. But it is also true that had the Bus driver

(5 of 6)

would drive the Bus with more caution and control the accident

would not have happened.

In the MACT cases claimants are not under an obligation to

prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of the

Bus driver is accepted as it is then also he cannot be escaped from

his liability towards the claimants. The accident was the direct

result of negligence on the part of Bus driver. The contentions

raised by the appellant RSRTC are not sufficient to absolve from

its vicarious liability for the negligent act on the part of its

employee.

Regarding quantum of compensation the Tribunal made

assessment of compensation after taking into account the nature

of injuries sustained by both the injured and their hospitalization

period as also permanent disability at 10% caused to Sonu.

Injured Sonu was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,500/-, injured Smt.

Bano was awarded a sum of Rs. 19,100/-, and injured Falaram

was awarded a sum of Rs. 22,306/- for his injuries and damage to

his Camel Cart.

Looking to the nature of injuries sustained and pain &

suffering caused to the claimants and other relevant

circumstances, the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal to the claimants is just and fair. There is no reason to

reduce the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

In the result the appeals are liable to be dismissed and the

same are hereby dismissed. Record be sent back to Tribunal.

Before parting with the judgment with the intent to save

several human lives from road accidents this Court deems it fit to

direct the State Government to evolve mechanism so as to ensure

affixing of reflectors on all types of Animal Carts, Tractor Trolleys

(6 of 6)

and similar types of rides on road. For implementing the

directions, the State Government has not only to raise funds but

make available human resources also since it is the duty of the

State Government to save the human lives and losses from such

accidents.

The State Government is also directed to ensure that the

persons, who ride on roads without adopting proper safety

measures, so as to endanger the life and safety of other persons,

be dealt strictly under the provisions of relevant penal provisions.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary,

Government of Rajasthan for necessary action and submitting

compliance report.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J 33 to 35-AK Chouhan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)