Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajasthan State Road. Tran. Corp vs Banshilal And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:42017) on 15 October, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:42017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2146/2016
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur Depot, through Chief Manager
----Appellant
Versus
1. Banshilal S/o Shri Moolaji,
2. Smt. Indra w/o Shri Banshilal,
Residents of Village Fuliyakallan, Tehsil Shahpura, at
present Tehsil Fuliyakallan, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan)
3. Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Resident
of Diggi, Thana- Diggi, District Tonk (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
15/10/2024
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by appellant/non-
claimant No.1 viz. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
('Corporation') under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing
the judgment and award dated 02.06.2016 passed by learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara ('Tribunal') in
MAC Case No.21/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of
respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/- on account of
untimely death of Ms. Krishna (deceased), who lost her life in the
accident, which took place on 06.10.2012.
2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondents/
claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act,
[2024:RJ-JD:42017] (2 of 6) [CMA-2146/2016]
1988 claiming compensation on account of death of their
daughter, Ms. Krishna, who was one and half years old at the time
of accident. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia stated that on
06.10.2012 the daughter of the claimants along with claimant
No.2, Indra, was travelling in Roadways Bus owned by non-
claimant No.1 bearing registration number RJ-14-PB-0566. The
aforesaid Bus was being plied by its driver i.e. non-claimant No.2
rashly and negligently and when the said Bus was going from
Fuliyakallan to Shahpura, the driver of the said Bus lost his control
over the Bus and near Arniya Ghoda, the Bus turned turtle. As a
result of which, the claimants' daughter fell into 'Nala' and she
died due to drowning. The claimants thus filed claim petition
claiming compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- on account of death of
their daughter.
3. On receipt of the summons, on behalf of appellant/non-
claimant No.1, reply to claim petition was filed while refuting the
claim laid therein. It was stated that there was no fault on the
part of driver of the offending Bus and the deceased due to
negligence of her mother i.e. claimant No.2. It was thus stated
and prayed that no liability could have been fastened upon the
non-claimant. Despite service of the summons upon the non-
claimant No.2/driver, nobody appeared on his behalf and,
therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against him on
23.08.2013.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed four issues for determination. In support of their claim, the
claimant No.1 examined himself as AW.1 and certain documents
were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, no evidence was led.
[2024:RJ-JD:42017] (3 of 6) [CMA-2146/2016]
5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the
parties and considering the evidence adduced by the parties,
partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of
Rs.3,30,000/- in favour of claimants along with interest @7% p.a.
from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. from 31.01.2013. The
liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon all the non-
claimants jointly and severally.
6. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court on 14.09.2016 and an interim order was also
passed to the effect that if the appellant Corporation deposits a
sum of Rs.2,25,000/- of the award amount alongwith interest,
after taking into consideration any amount deposited under
Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 (1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 within a period of four weeks, the rest of the
award was stayed. The amount when deposited, was ordered to
be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award. Later on,
while confirming the interim order, the stay application was
disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.01.2017.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
while passing the impugned judgment and award the learned
Tribunal has not examined the material on record in its entirety
and objectivity. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
while deciding the Issue No.1 the learned Tribunal has erred on
facts and law and erroneously held that the driver of the offending
Bus was plying the Bus rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the findings arrived at by the learned
Tribunal as to negligence is based on assumption and presumption
and the relevant evidence on record has not been considered in
[2024:RJ-JD:42017] (4 of 6) [CMA-2146/2016]
correct perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that no independent witness has been examined by the claimants
in order to substantiate their claim. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that without any independent eyewitness being
examined, and merely on the basis of investigation papers
submitted by the Police, the learned Tribunal has held the
negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
learned Tribunal has failed to apply the principle of 'rest ipsa
locutor' and contributory negligence which vitiates the impugned
judgment and award. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that negligence cannot be solely attributed to the driver of the
Bus, whereas due to negligence of the mother of the deceased,
she fell into the 'Nala' and died due to drowning, however, the
learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that while
deciding the Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- along with interest @7% p.a. from
the date of filing the claim petition. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the respondents have not filed any appeal
against the impugned award.
10. Despite service none is present on behalf of respondents
No.1 and 2/claimants and respondent No.3/non-claimant No.3.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
made by counsel for the appellant and have perused the material
available on record.
12. The learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.1, which
was with respect to negligence on the part of driver of the
[2024:RJ-JD:42017] (5 of 6) [CMA-2146/2016]
offending Bus, has considered the statement of AW.1 Banshilal,
who in his examination-in-chief stated that the deceased died due
to offending Bus turning turtle and he specifically denied that
while deceased was in the lap of her mother, she fell down and
died. In rebuttal, the non-claimants though denied the averments
made in the claim petition, however, no witness was examined by
them. The learned Tribunal also considered that charge sheet
(Ex.2) was filed against the driver of the offending Bus in the
competent criminal court while finding that the driver was plying
the Bus rashly and negligently.
13. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for
the appellant with regard to contributory negligence on the part of
deceased herself. This Court finds that since the issue No.1 has
rightly been decided by the learned Tribunal after considering the
evidence led by the parties, in the considered view of this Court,
no negligence at all could be attributed to the mother of the
deceased, inasmuch the deceased was infant girl and while she
was travelling with her mother/claimant No.2, the driver of the
Bus lost his control over the Bus and the Bus turned turtle and
deceased fell into the nearby 'Nala' and died. The learned Tribunal
thus has rightly found that the entire negligence was on the part
of driver of the offending Bus.
14. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering
age of the deceased, who was one and half years of age at the
time of accident, awarded a lump sum compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- and towards the loss of consortium, the learned
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the claimants and
towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal awarded
[2024:RJ-JD:42017] (6 of 6) [CMA-2146/2016]
Rs.10,000/- in favour of claimants, which in considered view of
this Court, is adequate one and calls for no interference by this
Court.
15. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds
no force in the instant misc. appeal. The misc. appeal lacks merit,
and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
30-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
