Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R.S.R.Tc vs Smt. Mithu And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:42007) on 15 October, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:42007]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2560/2016
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur through
Manager Transport, Rajasthan State Raod Transport Corporation,
Ajmer Depot, Ajmer Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Mithu W/o Late Shri Jagdish, r/o Kawalad, Tehsil-
Parbatsar, District- Nagaru Raj.
2. Smt. Rukma W/o Late Shri Ramuram, r/o Kawalad,
Tehsil- Parbatsar, District- Nagaru Raj.
3. Mangu Mohammed S/o Jamal Khan, r/o Karkeri, Police
Thana- Roopngarh, District- Ajmer Rajasthan (Driver)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit for appellant-RSRTC.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
15/10/2024
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the legality and validity
of the judgment/award dated 08.08.2016 passed by the learned
Judge, MACT Parbatsar in MAC Case No.63/2012; whereby, claim
petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed and the
respondents/non-claimants were held liable to pay the quantum of
compensation of Rs. 6,32,000/- @ 6% p.a.
2. Despite service, nobody appears on behalf of
respondents/claimants.
3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that on 21.02.2012 at
about 12.00 pm, the deceased Rohit (3 years) was urinating in
front of the house of one Banshilal. An RSRTC Bus bearing
registration No.RJ-10-P-3610, coming from Mayapur, driven in a
[2024:RJ-JD:42007] (2 of 5) [CMA-2560/2016]
rash and negligent manner, hit him and as a result whereof, he
expired on the spot. An FIR of the said incident, came to be
lodged at the nearby police station and after the investigation, a
charge-sheet came to be filed against the bus driver. Thereafter, a
claim petition was filed by the family members of the deceased
before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. The non-
claimants viz. Bus Driver and the RSRTC, were summoned and a
reply was filed by them while denying the averments made by the
claimants. The learned Tribunal, as per the pleadings, framed five
issues and thereafter, partly allowed the claim petition in favour of
the claimants. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-RSRTC has filed
the present misc. appeal.
4. Learned counsel representing the appellant-RSRTC submits
that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error while
awarding compensation in favour of the claimants, as it is on a
higher side. In this regard he further submits that while computing
the quantum, learned Tribunal has not relied upon the facts and
law as the notional income was presumed on a higher side. He
also submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that
there was negligence on part of the driver of the RSRTC Bus, then
too, it cannot be said that the deceased was not negligent in any
manner, therefore, if it is taken to be a case of contributory
negligence, then, quantum of compensation paid to the
respondents/claimants, deserves to be reduced substantially after
computing the compensation afresh. He also submits that the
respondents/claimants have not filed any appeal against the
award. He, thus, urges that the present misc. appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
[2024:RJ-JD:42007] (3 of 5) [CMA-2560/2016]
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the appellant's
counsel and have gone through the material available on record.
6. This Court finds that the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal deserves to be reduced. It is also deemed fit to
assess a just compensation which is reasonable according to the
underlying facts and circumstances of the case along with the
evidence placed on record, in light of the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand
Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.7255 of
2022 decided on 13.10.2022] and Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali
& Anr. v. Sham Kishore Murmu & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.6902 of
2021 decided on 16.11.2021].
7. This Court also deems it just to take the notional income of
the deceased as Rs.15,000/- while computing the loss of
dependency, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 3 years.
Furthermore, it is also clear that the amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal towards Transportation is just and thus, the same
does not warrant interference by this Court. This Court also finds
that the consortium awarded to the grandmother by the learned
Tribunal is also justified inasmuch as, after the death of the
deceased, only the mother and grandmother survives, and thus,
looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
bearing in mind the intent of the beneficial legislation coupled with
the fact that the grandmother too, would have been deprived of
the love, care, affection and company of the grandchild, this Court
deems it fit to award the consortium to the grandmother in the
instant case in light of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay
Sethi : [2017 (16) SCC 680].
[2024:RJ-JD:42007] (4 of 5) [CMA-2560/2016]
8. Thus, after arriving at the conclusion that the amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be reduced, counsel
for the appellant-RSRTC was directed to submit calculation of the
compensation awardable to the claimants, afresh in light of the
guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Meena
Devi (supra) and Kurvan Ansari (supra), which is furnished
before this Court in a tabular form as under:
S.No. Amount awarded by the Amount awarded by this
learned Tribunal Court.
1. Notional Income Notional Income
(Rs.30,000/- x 18 = [(Rs.15,000/- x 15
Rs.5,40,000/-) (multiplier) = Rs.2,25,000/-]
2. Consortium Rs.80,000/- to Consortium to mother and
mother and grandmother of grandmother of the deceased
the deceased. Rs.48,400/- each, i.e.
Rs.96,800/-
3. Funeral Expenses of Funeral Expenses of
Rs.10,000/- Rs.18,150/-
4. Transportation of Rs.2,000/- Transportation of Rs.2,000/-
5. TOTAL = Rs.6,32,000/- TOTAL = Rs.3,41,950/-
REDUCED AMOUNT Rs.2,90,050/-
(Rs.6,32,000/- minus Rs.3,41,950/-)
9. Accordingly, and in view of the above discussion, the misc.
appeal filed by the appellant RSRTC is partly allowed. The
claimants/respondents are thus, held entitled to get compensation
to the tune of Rs.3,41,950/- instead of Rs.6,32,000/-, jointly and
severally from the non-claimants i.e. appellant-RSRTC and the
respondent No.3-Driver along with the rate of interest as awarded
by the learned Tribunal. The amount of compensation is thus,
reduced by Rs.2,90,050/-. The judgment/award dated
08.08.2016 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Parbatsar in MAC
Case No.63/2012 is modified in the terms as stated above. The
[2024:RJ-JD:42007] (5 of 5) [CMA-2560/2016]
compensation redetermined by this order shall carry interest as
awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the
claim petition. The amount of compensation, if any, disbursed to
the claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly.
10. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith. No
order as to costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
32-/Devesh Thanvi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
