Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R.S.R.T.C.Jaipur And Ors vs Arpit Kulshresth And Ors. ... on 6 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37045]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1476/2009
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur
through General Manager, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through Chief
Manager, Pali Depot, Pali (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through Chief
Manager, Falna Depot, Pali (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Arpit Kulshresth S/o Shri Bhartendu Kulshresth, Resident of
11/427, Chopsani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
2. Jai Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Resident of Chautara, Police
Station Thambola, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
3. Smt. Veena Kapoor W/o Shri Subhash Kapoor, Resident of
B-25, Raikabagh, Jodhpur.
4. Kailashdan S/o Shri Prabhudan, Resident of Kailawa, Police
Station Pokran, District Jaisalmer.
5. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office,
First Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himmat Singh on behalf of
Mr. P.R. Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora, R-1.
Mr. Manish Rajpurohit.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
06/09/2024
1. The appellants (non-claimants No.2, 3 and 4) have preferred
this misc. appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988
assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 10.07.2009
passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-First,
[2024:RJ-JD:37045] (2 of 5) [CMA-1476/2009]
Jodhpur in MAC Case No.576/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal
partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant and awarded
compensation of Rs.1,19,720/- in favour of claimants along with
interest @8.5% p.a. and the liability of paying the compensation
has been fastened upon the appellants.
2. Facts apposite for the purposes of disposal of this misc.
appeal are that the claimant filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal claiming
compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the
accident, which took place on 06.10.2003 while he was travelling
in the roadways bus bearing number RJ-22-P-0334. The said bus
met with an accident with truck number RJ-19-1G-1479 and the
said accident took place due to negligence of both the drivers of
the vehicles. Thus by filing the claim petition, the claimant claimed
compensation of Rs.13,21,000/-.
3. The claim petition was contested by the non-claimants No.1
to 3 and 7 by filing reply thereto while denying the facts stated in
the claim petition. Exparte proceedings were initiated against the
non-claimants No.5 and 6.
4. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the
parties, framed four issues. The claimant examined himself as
AW.1 and Dr. Rakesh Kumar Saran as AW.2 and 118 documents
were exhibited. From the side of non-claimants, NAW.1 Jai Singh
(drover of the roadways bus) was examined, who in his
statements pleaded not guilty and stated that the accident
occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of the truck.
NAW.2 Narpat Singh, who was conductor of the bus, was also
examined.
[2024:RJ-JD:37045] (3 of 5) [CMA-1476/2009]
5. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments
advanced and considering the material placed before it partly
allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent and
awarded compensation of Rs.1,19,720/- in favour of claimants
along with interest @8.5% p.a.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/non-claimants submits
that the learned Tribunal has committed error while deciding issue
No.1 against the appellants, inasmuch as the testimony of NAW.1
and NAW.2 has not been considered by the learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that as such
the claimant has not sustained any permanent disability, which is
further fortified from the testimony of AW.2 Dr. Rakesh Kumar as
also the injury report (Ex.117). Learned counsel for the appellants
further submits that the learned amount awarded under the head
of non-pecuniary loss is also on higher side and, therefore, the
award impugned deserves to be quashed/modified.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1/claimant submits that in the instant case, the
claimant by leading cogent evidence, has proved its case and the
learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation in favour of
claimants. He further submits that in the said accident, the
claimant has lost 9 teeth and for affixing artificial crowns, the
claimant spent a sum of Rs.44,634/-. Learned counsel for the
claimant further submits that although artificial teeth were
implanted, however, claimant could not chew hard food in future.
Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the
compensation awarded by the learned under the heads of pain
and suffering is also just and proper and therefore, the same do
[2024:RJ-JD:37045] (4 of 5) [CMA-1476/2009]
not call for any interference in the instant appeal. Learned counsel
for the claimant further submits that the police after investigation
into the FIR, filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus
owned by the appellant Corporation.
8. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties and have perused the material available on record.
9. This Court finds that for the expenses incurred by the
claimant for his treatment i.e. implantation of teeth, the claimant
had incurred a sum of Rs.44,634/- while exhibiting relevant bills,
thus in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has not
erred any error in awarding the aforesaid amount. This Court also
finds that since the charge sheet was filed against the driver of
the roadways bus i.e. Jai Singh, which fact is fortified from Ex.2
i.e. Final Report, which was filed by the investigating agency after
conducting thorough investigation in the matter. This Court also
finds that the FIR was lodged by the appellant against the driver
of the truck in respect of the accident.
10. So far as the averments made by counsel for the appellants
that the claimant has not sustained any permanent disability is
concerned, this Court finds that the claimant has lost 9 teeth in
the said accident and with the help of implantation of artificial
teeth, he could not eat properly in future and thus in the opinion
of this Court, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal
towards the pain and suffering is just and adequate. The
compensation awarded under the other heads viz. nourishment,
transportation expenses, loss of estate etc. is also adequate
[2024:RJ-JD:37045] (5 of 5) [CMA-1476/2009]
11. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, the instant
misc. appeal lacks merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed.
The stay application also stands dismissed. No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
34-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
