Rajasthan High Court
R S R T C Thr Managing Dir vs Okendra Sharma And Ors on 8 February, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:6465]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3694/2017
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing
Director, Office Praivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur Through
Its Officer Incharge
----Appellant
Versus
1. Okendra Sharma S/o Sanwal Singh, Opposite Panchayat
Samiti Kaman, Teh. Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur Raj.
2. Sodan Singh S/o Ramhet, Village Jonai, Police Station
Saiya, Distt. Agra, Uttarpradesh And Driver Lohagarh
Depot, Bharatpur Driver Of Bus No. Rj-05-Pa-481
3. Banwarilal S/o Narayan Jagara, Village Papadda, Teh. And
Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-G-
1283
4. Hari Prasad Sharma S/o Ramsahai, Village Bhandana,
Teh. And Distt. Dausa Raj.
4A. Smt. Manbhari W/o Hari Prasad Sharma, Village
Bhandana, Teh. And Distt. Dausa Raj.
4B. Deendayal S/o Hari Prasad, Village Bhandana, Teh. And
Distt. Dausa Raj.
4C. Shivdayal S/o Hariprasad, Village Bhandana, Teh. And
Distt. Dausa Raj.
5. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Through
Manager, Office Opposite Hdfc Bank, Near Ahinsa Circle,
C-Scheme, Jaipur Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Rj-
29-G-1283
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4681/2017
Okendra Sharma S/o Sanwal Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o
Opposite Panchayat Samiti Kaman, Teh. Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur
Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sodan Singh S/o Ramhet, Village Jonai, Police Station Saiya,
Distt. Agra, Uttarpradesh And Driver Lohagarh Depot, Bharatpur
[2024:RJ-JP:6465] (2 of 5) [CMA-3694/2017]
Driver Of Bus No. Rj-05-Pa-481
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
Managing Director, Office Praivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur
(Owner-Bus No.RJ 05 PA 481)
3. Banwarilal S/o Narayan Jagara, Village Papadda, Teh. And
Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-G-1283
4. Hari Prasad Sharma S/o Ramsahai, Village Bhandana, Teh.
And Distt. Dausa Raj.
4A. Smt. Manbhari W/o Hari Prasad Sharma, aged 43 Years
4B.Deendayal S/o Hari Prasad aged 24 Years
4C. Shivdayal S/o Hariprasad aged 22 years
5. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Through
Manager, Office Opposite Hdfc Bank, Near Ahinsa Circle, C-
Scheme, Jaipur Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-G-1283
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel, Adv. (RSRTC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Khandal, Adv. (Claimant)
Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. with
Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. for
Insurance Company
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 08/02/2024
The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and
award dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal and Essential Commodity Act, Jaipur (for short 'the
Tribunal) in Claim Case No.621/2015, whereby the Tribunal while
partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of
Rs.4,67,700/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the
claimant-appellant (for short 'the claimant").
[2024:RJ-JP:6465] (3 of 5) [CMA-3694/2017]
CMA No.3694/2017 has been filed by the appellant-RSRTC
(for short 'the RSRTC') challenging the judgment & award dated
22.05.2017 passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds,
whereas CMA No.4681/2017 has been filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded
by the Tribunal.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3694/2017-Learned
counsel for the RSRTC submits that the tribunal wrongly allowed
the claim petition filed by the claimant vide judgment dated
22.05.2017. The tribunal had not decided issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 in
right perspective. As per evidence of respondent No.2-Sodan
Singh (driver of RSRTC bus), truck was parked on the middle of
the road and there were no indicators around it. The accident
occurred at 3:00 AM, so, there was no occasion for the driver of
the bus to avoid the accident. So, RSRTC be exonerated from its
liability and liability be fastened on the Insurance Company of the
truck in question. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that
evidence of Sodan Singh was not controverted by the claimant. No
eye witness was examined by the claimant to support his case.
So, judgment of the tribunal be set aside. Learned counsel for the
RSRTC also submits that the tribunal wrongly awarded a lumpsum
amount of Rs.1,35,000/- under the head of disability. Learned
counsel for the RSRTC also submits that injured claimant is a
retired Government Servant and he is getting pension. So, there
was no loss of income to him. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also
submits that the tribunal also wrongly allowed Rs.40,000/- for
nutritional diet. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that
[2024:RJ-JP:6465] (4 of 5) [CMA-3694/2017]
the tribunal wrongly allowed Rs.25,000/- for an attendant because
no evidence was led by the claimant regarding expenses incurred
of the attendant. So, judgment of the tribunal be set aside.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4681/2017- Learned
counsel for the claimant submits that the tribunal meagerly
awarded Rs.1,35,000/- for disability of the claimant. Learned
counsel for the claimant also submits that due to injury, claimant
was permanent disabled, which tantamounts to paralysis. He is
fully dependent upon others for his daily routine work. Claimant
had submitted his photos in order to establish his case. So,
disability of the claimant be considered as 100% in relation to the
nature of injuries sustained by him. Learned counsel for the
claimant also submits that the tribunal awarded a meagre amount
of Rs.25,000/- towards the attendant charges. Claimant will be
dependent on others till remaining part of life. So, amount
awarded by the tribunal be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhimanyu
Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon & Anr. reported in (2022) 8
SCC 489.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported
the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the RSRTC, learned counsel for the claimant and
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
The tribunal while deciding the claim petition clearly
mentioned that truck was parked on the middle of the road. Due
[2024:RJ-JP:6465] (5 of 5) [CMA-3694/2017]
to negligence of the bus driver, the accident occurred. So, in my
considered opinion, the tribunal had not committed any error in
deciding the issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 against the RSRTC.
The tribunal had considered the disability certificate exhibited
by claimant in which disability of the claimant was mentioned as
45%. Contention of the claimant that claimant was permanently
disabled and it tantamounts to paralysis and he is dependent on
othert claimant has been paralyzed. Judgment relied by the
claimant is not applicable in this appeal because in the said upon
case, the claimant was an IAS aspirant and later on due to 100%
disability in a road accident, he had to choose profession of
Advocate, whereas in the instant case, the claimant is a retired
Government Servant. So, in my considered opinion, the tribunal
had not committed any error in awarding Rs.1,35,000/- towards
the disability of the claimant. The tribunal rightly awarded
Rs.40,000/- for nutritional diet food and Rs.25,000/- for an
attendant. So, in my considered opinion, both the appeals filed by
RSRTC and claimant being devoid of merit, are liable to be
dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /656-657
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
