Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R.S.R.T.C vs Smt.Rasida And Ors. ... on 21 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:39290]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 796/2009
Chairman, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rasida W/o late Shri Anardeen, Resident of Athuna
Darwaja, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.
2. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 797/2009
Chairman, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rasidana W/o late Shri Anardeen,
2. Madina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
3. Sabina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
4. Laden @ Mubarak S/o late Shri Anardeen,
The respondent No.4 is minor through his natural guardian
mother Smt. Rasidana W/o late Shri Anardeen
All residents of Athuna Darwaja, Kuchaman City, Tehsil
Nawan, District Nagaur.
5. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 798/2009
Chairman, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (2 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
Versus
1. Rasida W/o late Shri Anardeen,
2. Madina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
3. Sabina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
4. Laden @ Mubarak S/o late Shri Anardeen,
The respondent No.4 is minor through his natural guardian
mother Smt. Rasidana W/o late Shri Anardeen
All residents of Athuna Darwaja, Kuchaman City, Tehsil
Nawan, District Nagaur.
5. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 799/2009
Chairman, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Aabid Ahmed S/o Shri Tajudeen, Resident of Athuna
Darwaja, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.
2. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1456/2011
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its
Chairman, Chaumu House, Jaipur. (Owner of Bus No. RJ-10-P-
3567)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Rasida W/o W/o late Shri Anardeen,
2. Miss Madina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
3. Miss Sabina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
4. Shri Laden @ Mubarak S/o late Shri Anardeen,
All residents of Athuna Darwaja, Kuchaman City, Tehsil
Nawan, District Nagaur.
(Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (3 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
Respondent No.4 is minor through his natural guardian
mother Smt. Rasidana W/o late Shri Anardeen
5. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Godara.
Mr. Kasturchand.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma, for
respondents/claimants.
None present despite service on
driver/respondent No.5 in CMA
No.1456/2011
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
21/09/2024
1. These misc. appeals have been filed by the appellant-
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation') under
Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and
award dated 27.03.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar ('Tribunal') in MAC Cases No.73/2006,
28/2006, 71/2006, 36/2006 and 72/2006, whereby the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the
respondents/claimants and awarded compensation in favour of
respective respondents/claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing the claim petitions.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation
submits that service upon driver/non-claimant No.1 of offending
Bus may be dispensed with at the risk and peril of the
Corporation.
3. Ordered accordingly.
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (4 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents/
claimants filed claim petitions claiming compensation on account
of death of Anardeen and Imran and for the injuries suffered by
Abid Ahmed and Saddam (who subsequently died) in the accident,
which took place on 02.11.2005. In the claim petitions, it was
inter-alia stated that on 02.11.2005, Anardeen (deceased) along
with his sons, namely, Sakeel, Imran, Saddan and Abid was going
on his motorcycle to handover some ornaments and meet his
relatives. The said motorcycle was plied by Sakeel. The accident
took place near Khandli Kothi turn, when the non-claimant No.1
driver of offending Bus (RJ-10-P-3567) while plying the vehicle in
rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, as a result of
which the riders and pillion riders of the motorcycle sustained
injuries and two of them died. The offending Bus was in the
registered ownership of appellant Corporation and the same was
plied by non-claimant No.1 under the employment and
instructions of his owner. The respondents/claimants thus filed
claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.33,60,000/-,
34,18,000/-, 41,94,000/-, 37,50,000/- and 20,80,000/-
respectively.
5. After registration of the claim petitions, summons were
issued to the non-claimants. No reply to the claim petition was
filed on behalf of non-claimant No.1.
6. On behalf of non-claimant No.2 i.e. appellant, reply to claim
petition was filed while raising certain preliminary objections. It
was stated by the appellant that there were five persons riding on
the motorcycle and the motorcycle was plied by its rider rashly
and negligently and it dashed to the standing bus. The rider of the
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (5 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
motorcycle himself violated the rules and in complete derogation
of the statutory rules, the motorcycle was plied by its rider. It was
further stated that owner of motorcycle (RJ-32-2M-7664) though
was a necessary party to the lis, was not made party non-claimant
in the claim petition, therefore, the claim petitions were liable to
be rejected.
7. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed five issues, including relief. In support of their claim
petitions, the claimants examined AW.1 Rasida, AW.2 Yakub Ali
Bhati, AW.3 Kundanran, AW.4 Islamudeen and AW.5 Abid and 19
documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, AW.1
Shaitan Singh, NAW.2 Parmeshwar Singh were examined and two
documents were exhibited.
8. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard arguments of both the
parties and after considering the material produced before it vide
impugned judgment and award dated 27.03.2009 partly allowed
the claim petitions and awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-,
Rs.3,81,000/-, Rs.3,21,000/-, Rs.13,200/- and Rs.3,40,000/-
along with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of respective claimants
and the liability was fastened upon the non-claimants to pay the
compensation.
9. In CMA Nos.796/2009, 797/2009, 798/2009 and 799/2009,
a Coordinate Bench of this Court admitted the appeal/s on
15.07.2009 and thereafter vide order dated 11.11.2009, the stay
application was disposed of while staying the execution of the
award against the appellant subject to appellant depositing 50%
of the awarded sum before the learned Tribunal after taking
account the amount already deposited by the appellant within one
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (6 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
month. The amount upon being deposited, was directed to be
disbursed to the claimants on the condition that in case the appeal
is allowed, the claimants shall refund the amount with interest @
9% p.a.
10. In CMA No.1456/2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 20.07.2011 while admitting the appeal directed the
appellant to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal within a period of one month and stayed
the execution of the impugned award dated 27.03.2009 in respect
of remaining amount of compensation. The amount upon being
deposited was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants in terms
of award passed by the Tribunal. Despite service of notice on non-
claimant No.1/driver, nobody had put in appearance on his behalf.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation vehemently
submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while deciding the
issue No.1 in favour of respondents/claimants and against the
appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation submits
that from the evidence brought on record, it was clearly
established by the appellants that it was the rider of the
motorcycle, who was plying the motorcycle rashly and negligently
at a high speed, that too with four other pillion riders, against the
riding capacity of two, however, this aspect has not at all been
considered by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that it was clear case of contributory
negligence, however, the learned Tribunal has not applied the
maxim of res ipsa loquitur properly, and has not followed the
principle of contributory negligence while deciding the issue No.1
against the appellant. He further submits that from the statements
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (7 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
of the witnesses and other material available on record, it was
proved by the appellant that there was negligence on the part of
the rider of the motorcycle, however, the learned Tribunal has
disbelieved the defence taken by the appellant without assigning
any reasons whatsoever.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that while
deciding the Issue No.3 in favour of claimants, the learned
Tribunal has not considered the various judgments passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that in the case of death of a
child who was 5 years of age at the time of accident, the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side
and the same ought to be suitably reduced.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that while
awarding compensation under the loss of income in favour of
respective respondents/claimants to tune of Rs.3,81,000/- and
Rs.3,21,200/- the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly
income of deceased Anardeen and Imran at Rs.3,000/- and
Rs.2400/- respectively without there being any plausible and
convincing evidence led by the claimants in this regard. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that for the injures
suffered by Abid Ahmed, the learned Tribunal has awarded excess
compensation.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
learned Tribunal while deciding Claim Case No.72/2006, the
learned Tribunal has seriously erred in deducting 1/3 rd income of
deceased-Sakeel and the same ought to be 1/2, inasmuch as the
deceased was unmarried.
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (8 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants submits that a perusal of the site plan
prepared by the concerned authority, would reveal that the
offending vehicle i.e. Bus was driven by its driver rashly and
negligently, on account of which the accident took place. He
further submits that offending Bus was inspected, wherein the
breaks of the Bus were found to be not 'proper', which was proved
by exhibiting Ex.7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
further submits that the no independent witnesses have been
examined by the appellant/non-claimant to show that there was
negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle. He further
submits that even the passengers sitting in the Bus have not been
examined on behalf of appellant-Corporation, whereas the
claimants have examined independent witnesses viz. AW.2, 3 and
4, who have specifically deposed that the Bus was driven by its
driver rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for the respondents
further submits that the non-claimants have failed to prove that
one of the rider was even sitting on the petrol tank of the
motorcycle.
16. Insofar as CMA No.1456/2011 preferred by the appellant-
Corporation assailing the judgment and award passed under
Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is concerned, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has
rightly deducted 1/3rd from the income of deceased, Sakeel, while
taking into consideration the fact that father of deceased expired
earlier and there were four dependents viz. mother, two sisters
and one brother. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
placed reliance on judgments passed in the cases of Mohammed
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (9 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
Siddique & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. : Civil
Appeal No.79/2020 decided on 08.01.2020, Sudhir Kumar Raman
v. Surinder Singh & Ors. : ACTC 2008 (1) 567, RSRTC v.
Kirandeep Kaur & Ors. : ACTE 2004 194, RSRTC v. Prakash Chand
Bhargava & Ors. : ACTC 2007 (1) 314, Gopal Kanwar (Smt.) &
Ors. v. Shravan & Ors. : ACTC 2015 (1) 493 and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Santosh Devi & Ors. : SBCAM
No.324/2010 decided on 15.04.2013.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants thus prayed
that the appeals preferred by the appellant Corporation may be
dismissed.
18. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties at length and have perused the material available on
record and the judgment cited at Bar.
19. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while deciding the
issue no.1 has considered the result of investigation of the FIR
lodged by the claimants of the accident. The investigation of the
FIR (Ex.1) culminated in the submission of a charge sheet against
the driver/non-claimant No.1 for offences under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304A of IPC in the competent criminal court. This
Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the
statements of NAW.1 Shaitan Singh and NAW2 Parmeshwar Singh
(driver/non-claimant No.1), who have though deposed that the
accident took place due to negligence on the part of rider of the
cycle, however, no documentary evidence was produced by the
non-claimants in this regard. On the other hand, the claimants
exhibited Ex.4 i.e. charge sheet, which was filed against the driver
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (10 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
of the offending Bus, wherein the negligence was attributed to the
driver of the bus.
20. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has observed that
the non-claimants failed to prove that there were five occupants
riding on the motorcycle at the time of accident and that there
was negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle and, thus in
the considered view of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly
not found any negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle.
21. This Court also considered the submissions made by counsel
for the appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 rd
income of deceased, Sakeel and the same ought to be 1/2,
inasmuch as the deceased was unmarried. This Court finds that as
the MAC Cases No.72/2006(seeking compensation on account of
the death of Sakeel) was filed under Section 163 A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore the standard deduction of 1/3 on
account of personal expenses was applicable. Also, since father of
the deceased Sakeel expired earlier and after his death, mother,
two sisters and one brother, would be considered as dependents of
deceased Sakeel. Considering the above facts situation, the
learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3 amount of income
for the personal expenses of deceased, though he was unmarried.
This Court is thus of the view that the deduction made by the
learned Tribunal to the extent of 1/3 is justified and the same calls
for no interference by this Court.
22. This Court also considered the submissions made by counsel
for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation
awarded in favour of respective claimants. This Court after having
regard to the submissions made by counsel for parties and the
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (11 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
having perused the record, finds that the amount of compensation
awarded in favour of respective claimants is just and appropriate.
Therefore also, the same calls for no interference by this Court.
The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in death case
of Sakeel under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is also in
accordance with the Schedule appended and, therefore, the same
also calls for no interference.
23. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds
no force in the misc. appeals preferred by the appellant
Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated
27.03.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Parbatsar. The misc. appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
95 to 99-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
