R S R T C vs Ramvati And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 2153 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

R S R T C vs Ramvati And Others on 20 March, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3050/2007

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its
Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur.
2. Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.
                                                                 ----Appellant
                                   Versus
     1. Ramvati(minor) D/o Girdharilal through Girdharilal S/o
       Motiram Gurjar (Guardian) Village Parmada Tehsil Deeg,
       District Bharatpur.
     2. Raghupat S/o Balbir Singh, Driver, Rajasthan State Road
       Transport Corporation Bus No.RJ 05 P 0163 through Depot
       Manager, Bharatpur
                              ---Proforma Respondent/Non-Claimant

For Appellant(s)         :     Ms. Shruti Dixit, Adv.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment

Date Of Judgment 20/03/2024

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-RSRTC (for short

'the RSRTC') against the judgment and award dated 18.04.2007

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deeg, Bharatpur

(Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg) (for short 'the

Tribunal') in Civil Case No.27/2000, whereby the Tribunal has

awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest

@ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as

compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 (for short

'the claimant').

2. Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the The Tribunal

has wrongly awarded lump sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as

(2 of 2) [CMA-3050/2007]

compensation in favour of the claimant without application of

mind. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that driver

of the bus was not responsible for the alleged accident because

the road, on which, the accident took place was in a dilapidated

condition. So, vehicle could not have been driven on the said road

on excessive speed. The driver of the bus was also acquitted by

the trial court in criminal case. So, the judgment and award dated

18.04.2007 passed by the Tribunal be set-aside.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the RSRTC and submitted that as

per disability certificate(Exhibit-7), the claimant sustained 40%

permanent disability. So, the Tribunal has rightly awarded lump

sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the

claimant. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to

be dismissed.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the RSRTC as well as learned counsel for the claimant.

5. As per disability certificate(Exhibit-7), the claimant suffered

40% permanent disability and at the time of accident, the

claimant was 10 years of age. So, in my considered opinion, the

Tribunal has rightly awarded lump sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/-

as compensation in favour of the claimant. So, the present appeal

being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed which stands

dismissed accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/229

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)