Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R.S.R.T.C.Bhilwara vs Sagar And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:37981) on 12 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37981]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 829/2013
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through the
Chief Manager, Bhilwara
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sagar Gurjar S/o Shri Kamal Gurjer, R/o Dhandholai,
Bhilwara through his natural guardian mother Smt. Geeta
W/o Kamal Gurjer.
2. Hiralal S/o Nanuram Jat, R/o Sopura, Tehsil Kotari, District
Bhilwara (Deleted on 13.01.2010) Driver of Bus No.RJ-06-
P-1783)
3. The Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited, through
Manager, The Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited,
Branch, O-12A, 2nd Floor, Ashok Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
(Insurance company of Trailer No.HR-17-G-8185)
4. Phool Singh S/o Umraw Singh Gurjar, R/o Salawas, Tehisl
Tewadi, Hariyana, at present resident of Mundawar, District
Alwar. (Owner of Trailer No.HR-47-G-8185)
5. Ramfal S/o Amar Singh Jat R/o Renaghar, P.S.- Mundawar,
District- Alwar. (Driver of the Trailer No.HR-47-G-8185)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.K. Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas, R-3 Insu. Co.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
12/09/2024
1. Appellant/Non-claimant No.1- Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, owner of the offending Bus, ('Corporation')
has preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ('Act') assailing the validity of the
judgment and award dated 19.10.2012 passed by learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara ('Tribunal') in MAC Case
[2024:RJ-JD:37981] (2 of 6) [CMA-829/2013]
No.53/2009 : Sagar Gurjar v. RSRTC & Ors., whereby the learned
Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of
claimant/respondent No.1 to tune of Rs.23,447/- for the injuries
suffered by him in the said accident along with interest @ 6% p.a.
The learned Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the
compensation upon the appellant- Corporation.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
claimant/respondent No.1 filed claim petition through his natrual
guardian mother, inasmuch as at the time of accident, he was 13
years of age, under Section 166 of the Act before the learned
Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him
while he was travelling in the Bus owned by the non-claimant
No.1- Corporation. In the claim petition, the claimant/respondent
No.1 prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.3,23,000/- along
with interest for the injuries suffered by him. In the claim petition,
it was inter-alia alleged by the claimant that on 04.06.2008,
claimant Sagar along other passengers boarded in the
Corporation's Bus bearing registration number RJ-06-P-1783 and
at about 08:30 pm, between Nasirabad to Bhilwara, when the said
Bus reached near Jain Petrol Pump, the non-claimant No.2 i.e.
driver of the said bus plied the vehicle rashly and negligently left
his lane and entered into a wrong lane and it collided to a Trailer
Truck bearing registration number HR-47-G-8185, which was plied
by its driver i.e. non-claimant No.5 under the instructions and
employment of non-claimant No.4. In the aforesaid accident, the
claim suffered grievous and simple injuries all over his body.
3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant/non-
claimant No.1 by filing reply thereto. In the reply, it was stated
[2024:RJ-JD:37981] (3 of 6) [CMA-829/2013]
that there was no fault on the part of driver of the Corporation's
Bus and the accident had taken place due to negligent driving of
driver of Trailer. It was thus prayed that the claim petition be
rejected. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurer of Trailer,
reply was filed while alleging violation of conditions of the policy,
such as the driver of the Trailer was not having valid and effective
licence, permit etc. It was stated that there was negligence of the
driver of the Bus and the bus was being plied by its driver on
wrong side, which collided with the Trailer being plied by its driver
in correct side/lane. It was thus prayed that the claim petition be
rejected. Name of non-claimant No.2 was deleted by the Tribunal
on the request being made by the claimant. Exparte proceedings
were drawn against non-claimants No.4 and 5, inasmuch as
despite service nobody appeared on their behalf.
4. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed five issues, including relief. The claimant in support of his
claim petition, examined Smt. Geeta Devi as AW.4, mother of
claimant/respondent No.1 and 109 documents were exhibited. On
behalf of non-claimants, Heeralal (NAW.1) and Shivlal Khandelwal
(NAW.2) were examined and four documents were exhibited.
6. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard arguments of the
parties and after considering the evidence, oral as well as
documentary, led by the parties vide its judgment and award
dated 19.10.2012 proceeded to partly allowed the claim petition
and awarded compensation of Rs.23,447/- for the injuries suffered
by him in the said accident along with interest @ 6% p.a. and the
liability was fastened upon the appellant/non-claimant No.1.
[2024:RJ-JD:37981] (4 of 6) [CMA-829/2013]
7. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.07.2013, however, the
stay application was dismissed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/non-claimant
No.1, at the outset, submits that the learned Tribunal has
committed error while deciding Issues No.1, 3 and 4 against the
appellant/non-claimant No.1, whereby the negligence has been
attributed to the driver of Corporation's Bus. While relying upon
the testimonies of NAW.1 and NAW.2, learned counsel for the
appellant/non-claimant No.1 submits that the accident occurred
due to negligence on the part of driver of the Trailer. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the police after
investigation filed charge sheet against both the drivers i.e. Bus
and the Trailer, however, the learned Tribunal has failed to
appreciate the evidence available on record and thus erred in
holding the entire negligence on the part of driver of Corporation's
Bus. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there
was traffic congestion and that is why the driver of the Bus drove
his vehicle at a moderate speed, however, due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Trailer, the accident took
place.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of Rs.3000/-
in favour of claimant, inasmuch as no documents viz. x-ray report,
admission or discharge tickets were produced by the claimant
substantiating the fact that the claimant had suffered injuries.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned
Tribunal has erred in awarding excessive compensation under the
[2024:RJ-JD:37981] (5 of 6) [CMA-829/2013]
heads of pain and suffering, special diet and attendant charges.
Learned counsel for the appellant with these submissions prayed
that the misc. appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and
award be quashed and set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3 insurance company (insurer of Trailer) opposes the
submissions made by counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel
for the respondent No.3 submits that there was negligence on the
part of the driver of the Corporation's Bus, inasmuch as he was
plying the vehicle in extreme wrong side, which was duly
corroborated by the witnesses examined during the course of trial.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 thus submits that the
appeal deserves dismissal.
11. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties and have perused the material available on record.
12. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the
relevant issues, has considered the 'Naksha-Mauka' (Ex.2),
according to which, the driver of the Trailer (HR-47-G-8185) was
plying on four lane road in its correct side and it was the driver of
the Corporation's Bus, who while leaving his lane, entered into the
lane, on which the Trailer was coming in its correct side, and
collided with the same. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error while holding the negligence on the
part of driver of the appellant Corporation's Bus. This Court is thus
of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
while deciding the Issue No.1 against the appellant/non-claimant
No.1 and fastening the liability upon the appellant to satisfy the
award.
[2024:RJ-JD:37981] (6 of 6) [CMA-829/2013]
13. This Court also finds that the compensation awarded in
favour of claimant for three injuries suffered by him is adequate.
The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has considered
the injury report (Ex.107), wherein it was specifically mentioned
that the claimant/injured had suffered three injuries, which simple
in nature. This Court finds that no error has been committed by
the learned Tribunal in awarding compensation towards pain and
suffering, special diet and attendant expenses, which were
incurred for the treatment of the injured/claimant.
14. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds
no force in the misc. appeal preferred by the appellant Corporation
and the misc. appeal deserves dismissal.
15. Dismissed accordingly. No costs. Record be sent back
forthwith.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
8-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
