Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Dhuli Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 13892 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1437/2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Udaipur Depot Through Kanhaiyalal S/o Pema Ahir, R/o Dharta, Tehsil Bhinder, District Udaipur, At Present Assistant Traffic Inspector, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Udaipur (Rajasthan) (Owner Bus)

----Appellant Versus

1. Dhuli Bai W/o Shankarlal, B/c Dangi, R/o Sakalada, Kun, Kanor Present Tehsil Lasadiya, District Udaipur (Raj.)

2. Prakash S/o Shankarlal, B/c Dangi, R/o Sakalada, Kun, Kanor Present Tehsil Lasadiya, District Udaipur (Raj.)

3. Smt. Dhuli Bai W/o Kesha, B/c Dangi, R/o Sakalada, Kun, Kanor Present Tehsil Lasadiya, District Udaipur (Raj.)

4. Udailal S/o Kesha, B/c Jat, R/o Toliyon Ka Mohalla, Dungla, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh (Raj.) (Driver Of Bus)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Loon Karan Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

25/11/2022

I.A.No.01/2022:

For the reasons stated and after hearing learned rival

counsel, delay of 42 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Appeal is treated to be filed in limitation.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1437/2020:

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appeal in hands arise out of the judgment and award

dated 05.03.2020, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

(2 of 4) [CMA-1437/2020]

Tribunal No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal),

whereby, Claim Case No.281/2019 has been allowed and the

appellant (RSRTC) has been directed to pay a sum of

Rs.12,58,000/- to the respondent No.1 to 3 as compensation on

account of death of one Shankarlal.

3. The facts in brief are that on 30.08.2018, the deceased

Shankarlal was undertaking the travel in a bus belonging to the

present appellant bearing registration No. RJ-27-PA-2979.

4. It was the case set up by the claimants that before the

deceased could properly get off the bus, the driver of the bus

started the bus, due to which the rear side tyre of the bus ran

over him resulting in his death on the spot.

5. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the

deceased himself was negligent and responsible in his death,

because he should not have attempted to get off while the bus

was still in motion.

6. It was alternatively argued that the amount of compensation

should have been reduced in proportion to the negligence of the

deceased.

7. That amount of compensation was also challenged on

quantum.

8. Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel for the claimants on the other

hand argued that the claimants have proved/established beyond

doubt that negligence was of the driver of the bus, who did not

allow the deceased to properly get off the bus and settle and

moved the bus carelessly.

(3 of 4) [CMA-1437/2020]

9. It was argued by Mr. Kawadia that the deceased got off the

bus on toll naka, where the bus took a brief halt and therefore,

the deceased cannot be said to have been negligent.

10. It was argued that appellants contention regarding income is

unsustainable, as the award amount is based on the income tax

return of the deceased filed by the claimants.

11. Heard learned counsel and perused the record.

12. So far as the alleged negligence of the deceased is

concerned, this Court is of the view that as the bus had halted at

toll naka and the driver/conductor of the bus allowed the deceased

to disembark, it was a duty of the driver to ensure that the

passenger has safely settled. In the facts of the present case, the

deceased cannot be said to have been negligent, contributively, let

alone completely.

13. It was not case set up by the appellant (RSRTC) that the

deceased got off the bus after opening the door of the bus himself.

It was the responsibility of the driver and conductor to ensure that

the passenger properly got off the bus and settled, before

undertaking the ongoing journey.

14. In view of the above and considering the evidence produced

on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the

findings recorded by the Tribunal so far as negligence of the

deceased is concerned.

15. Adverting to Mr. Purohit's contention about the amount

awarded, this Court is of the view that income arrived at by the

driver is best on documentary evidence, namely, the income tax

return of the deceased. Such evidence cannot be brushed aside

and the award cannot be said to be contrary to facts and law.

(4 of 4) [CMA-1437/2020]

16. There is no merit and substance in the present appeal, for

which it is hereby dismissed.

17. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 138-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)