Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chief Manager, Rsrtc And Anr vs Uchhabkanwar And Ors ... on 24 October, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:44062]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 408/2017
1. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Tranpost
Corporation, Phalodi, District- Jodhpur Rajasthan.
2. General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jodhpur Depot Rajasthan. Non-Claimant
Owner Bus
----Appellants
Versus
1. Uchhabkanwar W/o Shri Ramsingh
2. Ramsingh S/o Shri Ragunathsingh, Both Cast- Rathore,
Resident Of Pacharo Avam Bichchhuo Ki Thani Deu,
Tehsil- Khinvasar, District- Nagaur Raj.
3. Tejaram Vishnoi S/o Tulachharam, Residents Of Khara
Tehsil- Phalodi, District- Jodhpur At Present Driver Rsrtc
Phalodi Depot Raj.. Driver Of Bus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. LK Purohit
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
24/10/2024
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as
'the Act') against the judgment and award dated 08.11.2016
(hereinafter as 'the impugned award') passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur (hereinafter as 'the learned
tribunal') in MAC Case No.194/2012, whereby the learned Tribunal
has awarded compensation in favour of the Respondent nos.1 and
2 (hereinafter as 'claimants') to tune of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith
interest @ 7.5% p.a. and held the appellant herein and the
[2024:RJ-JD:44062] (2 of 5) [CMA-408/2017]
respondent no.2/driver jointly and severally to pay the
compensation.
2. Briefly stated, the facts the on 13.08.2012 at about 5:30 pm
Khivsingh (11 years of age at the time of the accident) was
returning on foot to his home and near the Baghsingh Ki Dhani at
Nagaur Phalodi road, a bus bearing registration number RJ-19-PA-
4382, being driven by the respondent no.3/driver in a rash and
negligent manner, hit the Khivsingh. As a result of said accident
the Khivsingh (hereinafter as 'the deceased child') met his demise.
Subsequently, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section
163-A of the Act, claiming compensation on account of death of
the deceased child.
3. Reply was filed by the appellants and the Respondent
no.3/driver denying the averments made in the claim petition.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed four issues. In support of their claim, the claimants
examined 4 witnesses and 16 documents were exhibited. On
behalf of non-claimants, 4 witnesses have been examined.
5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the
parties and considering the evidence led by the respective parties,
vide its judgment and award dated 08.11.2016 partly allowed the
claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in
favour of claimants along with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date
of filing of the application i.e. 22.12.2012. The liability to satisfy
the award was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and
severally.
6. Aggrieved by the same the instant appeal has been preferred
by the appellants.
[2024:RJ-JD:44062] (3 of 5) [CMA-408/2017]
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that
the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding the issue no.1
(regarding the negligence of the respondent no.3/driver) while
giving the finding that the driver was driving the bus in a rash and
negligent manner whereas on record, it is clear that the driver of
the corporation vehicle was not negligent in driving the vehicle
and as per the evidence, the bus was also not involve in the
accident. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in
deciding the issue No.3 while awarding the huge compensation to
the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- therefore, the compensation was given
by the learned Tribunal is at higher side without any basis. He also
submits, in alternative that the corporation vehicle was not
responsible for the accident but if it is assumed that the same
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.3/
driver, then a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased himself should be held as the entire negligence cannot
be attributed to the respondent no.3/driver of the offending bus
alone. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred
in granting high interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of
claim petition.
8. None present on behalf of the respondents/claimants.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and have perused
the material available on record.
10. This court at the outset finds that the claim petition in the
present case was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, which
stipulates that in claims filed under sub-section (1) of Section
163-A of the Act, the claimants shall not be required to plead or
[2024:RJ-JD:44062] (4 of 5) [CMA-408/2017]
establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of
which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or
negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles
concerned or of any other person, thus, the contention raised by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is
devoid of any merit.
11. Now, as far as the contention of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants with respect to the quantum
of compensation is concerned this court finds that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Ors. Vs. Lala
and Ors. : [(2014) 1 SCC 244], where the age of the deceased
child was 10 years, has taken the notional income of the deceased
child as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. looking to the facts and circumstances.
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari
and Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Ors. : [(2022) 1
SCC 317], where the age of the deceased child was 7 years, has
taken notional income of the deceased child as Rs. 25,000/- p.a.
and after applying Multiplier of 15 granted total of Rs. 3,75,000/-
under the head of 'loss of dependency' and also an amount of Rs.
40,000/- to each of the parents under the head of filial consortium
and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses.
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena
Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto and Ors : [(2023) 1 SCC 204],
where the age of the deceased child was 12 years, has taken the
notional income as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. including future prospect and
applied Multiplier of 15 to arrive at the compensation awardable
under the head of 'loss of dependency' and awarded Rs. 50,000/-
under the conventional heads.
[2024:RJ-JD:44062] (5 of 5) [CMA-408/2017]
12. Thus, looking to the age of the deceased child (i.e., 11
years) and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case
and in the light of the above cited judgments, this court finds no
reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the
learned tribunal.
13. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs,
the instant misc. appeal preferred by the appellants, being devoid
of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant
misc. appeal is dismissed.
14. Record be sent back forthwith.
15. No order as to the costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/67-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
