Rajasthan High Court
Rsrtc vs Roopkala on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
[2023/RJJP/003250] (1 of 6) [CMA-547/2012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 547/2012
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Dausa Depot
through its Manager.
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur
through its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Owner
Bus No.RJ-29-PA-0584).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Roopkala W/o Girdhar Singh
2. Barkha D/o Girdhar
(Minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Roopkala)
3. Narayan Singh S/o Kamal Singh
4. Raghuvari W/o Narayan Singh
(All Jat by caste, R/o Kakada, Police Station Deeg, District
Bharatpur).
5. Dinesh S/o Bijendra Singh, R/o Usrani Police Station,
Kumher, at present Pandey Mohalla, Goverdhan Gate, Deeg,
Driver Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. C. Mittal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemendra Goyal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
DATE OF RESERVED :: 10/02/2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : : 24/02/2023
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant -
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC')
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the
judgment and award dated 02.12.2011 passed by Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional and District Sessions Judge
[2023/RJJP/003250] (2 of 6) [CMA-547/2012]
No.1), Deeg, District Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.125/2009 whereby the learned
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants
and awarded a sum of Rs.4,38,000/-.
2. Brief facts relevant for the present purposes are that on
23.08.2009 an FIR No.594/2009 was lodged in Police Station
Deeg, District Bharatpur stating therein that on 22.08.2009 at
about 6.00 pm a bus of RSRTC bearing registration No.RJ-29-PA-
0584 was coming from Nagar in a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner. While overtaking a bus of UP Roadways, it
collided with a motorcycle, which was driven by one Girdhar Singh
and due to which Girdhar Singh sustained grievous injuries and
died.
3. The FIR was lodged under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC
and after investigation charge-sheet against one Dinesh Kumar,
driver of the bus of RSRTC was produced under Sections 379 &
304-A of IPC.
4. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 was filed by the dependents of the deceased and a total
compensation of Rs.82,56,000/- under various head of
compensation was claimed.
5. The claim petition was contested by the driver and the owner
of the offending vehicle.
6. Learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award
dated 02.12.2011 and partly allowed the claim petition and total
compensation of Rs.4,38,000/- was awarded under various heads.
[2023/RJJP/003250] (3 of 6) [CMA-547/2012]
7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the
learned Tribunal the present appeal has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant - RSRTC has submitted
that there was no eye-witness of the incident. The wife of the
deceased has admitted that she did not see the incident.
Testimony of other two witnesses i.e. Raju and Lokendra Singh is
doubtful. Affidavit of AW.3 - Lokendra Singh was attested by Oath
Commissioner before it was signed by deponent himself, which
creates a serious doubt about the contents of the affidavit and the
evidence given by such witness.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged
incident has taken place on 22.08.2009 at 5.00 pm whereas the
FIR was lodged on 23.08.2009 at 4.00 pm with a delay of 23
hours. This shows the whole story of the claimant is doubtful.
10. It has been the main contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant - RSRTC that in this case the evidence given by so
called eye-witnesses is not trust worthy because wife of the
deceased - AW.2 - Roopkala has admitted in her evidence that
she was not present at the time of untoward incident.
11. AW.1 - Raju and AW.3 - Lokendra Singh are also not trust
worthy witnesses and both of them have planted a story.
12. It has also been contended that affidavit of AW.3 was signed
by the deponent on 22.01.2011 and was submitted before the
Court on 29.01.2011, but it was attested by the Oath
Commissioner on 12.10.2010, which shows that the examination-
in-chief of AW.3 - Lokendra Singh is fully doubtful.
[2023/RJJP/003250] (4 of 6) [CMA-547/2012]
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned judgment and award and argued that
there is no force in the appeal hence, it be dismissed.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
15. AW.1 - Raju has deposed in his affidavit that on 22.08.2009
at the time of accident he was coming from Deeg and going to his
village Bedam. The deceased - Girdhar Singh was coming on a
motorcycle in a slow speed. A bus of Dausa Depot of RSRTC
bearing registration No.RJ-29-PA-0584 was coming from opposite
side. It is alleged that the driver took the bus on wrong side of the
road and collided with the deceased - Girdhar Singh, who
sustained grievous injuries.
16. During the course of investigation, site plain has been
prepared and exhibited as Ex.5. In the site plan the place of
incident is shown as 'X'. The motorcycle was coming from Deeg
and going towards Nagar and the offending vehicle was coming
from Nagar and going towards Deeg. The place of incident was
marked in the site plain is the right side of the motorcycle and
extreme wrong side of the offending vehicle. It has also been
mentioned in the details of the site plan that at the time of
accident, the offending vehicle was overtaking another bus of UP
Roadways. The details mentioned in the site plan is sufficient to
prove negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
17. In a motor accident claim requirement of eye-witness is not
necessary and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle can
[2023/RJJP/003250] (5 of 6) [CMA-547/2012]
be proved by the other evidence collected during the course of
investigation, such as site plan and mechanical inspection report
of the vehicle involved in the incident. Therefore, the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is no eye-witness
in the case so the whole story of the claimants should be treated
as doubtful, is not at all sustainable.
18. In this case the incident has taken place on 22.08.2009 at
5.45 pm and the injured was taken to hospital. In the FIR itself
father of the deceased has explained that he was busy in the
process of postmortem, therefore, the report was submitted
immediately thereafter. This delay cannot be treated to be fatal for
the case of the claimants because claim petition is a civil
proceeding and the same is to be disposed of on the basis of
preponderance of the evidence. Standard of proof which is
required in criminal case is different from the standard required in
civil cases. Therefore, the learned Tribunal on the basis of
evidence produced before it has decided the claim petition in right
perspective. The findings, of the learned Tribunal, that the
deceased was not at all negligent in driving his motorcycle and it
was the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle alone,
which caused the accident, is not liable to be interfered with.
19. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any
merit in this appeal, which deserves to be dismissed.
20. The present appeal is thus, dismissed.
21. Stay application too stands dismissed.
[2023/RJJP/003250] (6 of 6) [CMA-547/2012]
22. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
A.Arora/- (Reserved)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
