Rajasthan High Court
R S R T C vs Smt Raj Bai And Ors on 19 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:13444]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4735/2009
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Director,
Head Office, Parivan Marg, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation throughChief
Manager Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Rajbai @ Dadi wife of Late Prakash@ Devidas aged
about 24 years
2. Shri Ramesh Luhar son of Shri Harji Luhar aged about 48
years
3. Smt. Gyarshi wife of Ramesh Luhar aged about 46 years,
4. Master Ganesh son of Shri Ramesh Luhar aged about 19
years.
5. Kumari Santra daughter of Shri Ramesh Luhar aged about 17
years
6. Kumari Kaka Daughter of Shri Ramesh Luhar aged about 11
years
7. Kumar Ninu Daughter of Shri Ramesh Luhar aged about 9
years
all resident of Luhar Basti, Ajay Nagar, Police Station Ramganj
Ajmer Through minor and natural guardian Smt. Rajbai @ Dadi
Kumari Guddi D/o Late Sh. Gulla Ram age 14 years.
8. Shri Sheraram son of Shri Chogaram aged about 30 years,
resident of Village Riya Setha Ki Police Thana Pipad City District
Jodhpur at present driver of RSRTC Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur
bearing Bus No. RJ 19 1P 0510
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Harshita, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J P Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 19/03/2024
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the non-claimants-RSRTC (for
short 'the RSRTC') against the judgment and award dated
[2024:RJ-JP:13444] (2 of 3) [CMA-4735/2009]
11.06.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal &
Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Ajmer (for short 'the
Tribunal') in Claim Case No.556/2006, (654/06) whereby the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- along with interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as
compensation in favour of the claimants.
Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal has
wrongly considered the income of the deceased- Prakash @
Devidas as Rs. 3,000/- per month because the claimants failed to
adduce any cogent evidence that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per
month. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the
Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 while calculating
the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits
that at the time of accident deceased was 22 years of age, so
multiplier should be applied on the basis of the age of deceased's
parents. So multiplier of 15 should be applied instead of 17.
Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in holding the bus driver responsible for the
said accident. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that
the deceased was riding scooter and he came from the wrong
side, due to which, the accident took place. So, the RSRTC is not
liable to pay the amount of compensation. So, the appeal filed by
the RSRTC be allowed and the judgment passed by the Tribunal be
set aside.
Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents (for short 'the
claimants') has opposed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the RSRTC and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly
considered the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month
[2024:RJ-JP:13444] (3 of 3) [CMA-4735/2009]
and rightly applied the multiplier of 17 because deceased was
married man. The deceased was 22 years of age at the time of
accident. There is no need to apply the multiplier on the basis of
the age of deceased's parents. Learned counsel for the claimants
also submits that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on
the RSRTC because bus driver was responsible for the said
accident. So, the present appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the RSRTC as well as learned counsel for the
claimants.
The Tribunal while allowing the claim petition noted that from
the documentary evidence and the investigation concluded by the
police, it was clear that respondent No.1 (driver) drove the bus
rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooter, as a result
of which Prakash @ Devidas fell down and ran over by bus, due to
which he died. So, The Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion
that the bus driver was negligent while driving the offending bus.
The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 on the basis of
age of the deceased i.e. 22 years and rightly considered the
income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. So, in my
considered opinion, the present appeal filed by the RSRTC being
devoid of merit, is liable be dismissed, which stand dismissed
accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/Tahir/63
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
