Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohan Lal vs R.S.R.T.C. And Ors. ... on 23 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:39400]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1300/2014
Sohan Lal S/o Dhanna Lal, aged about 32 years, Resident of
Kodukota, District Bhilwara
----Appellant/Claimant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office,
Jaipur through Aagar Manager, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Bhilwara.
2. Surya Prakash S/o late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Vaishnava,
Resident of Dabala, Vehicle Driver, through Rajasthan Stte
Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara.
3. Hanif Mohd. S/o Ghishu Khan Musalman, Resident of
Dabla, Bus Conductor, Rajasthan Stte Road Transport
Corporation, Bhilwara.
----Respondents/Non-claimants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mohan Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia, R-1.
Mr. Pranjal Babel on behalf of
Mr. Sanjay Nahar, R-2/Driver.
None present for R-3.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
23/09/2024
1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 ('Act') has been preferred by the appellant/claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation amount quantified and
awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhilwara ('Tribunal') by its award dated 22.04.2014 in MAC Case
No.237/2013 (297/2005), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.3,069/- in favour of claimant along with
[2024:RJ-JD:39400] (2 of 7) [CMA-1300/2014]
interest @ 6% p.a. The liability of paying the compensation was
fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that
the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- for the injuries
suffered by him in the accident, which took place on 05.06.2003.
In the claim petition, it was stated that on 05.06.2003, claimant
was travelling in the Corporation's Bus (RJ-06-P-1496) from
Bhilwara to Kodukota, however, on account of rush of passengers
in the Bus, the non-claimant No.3 asked the claimant to sit on the
roof of the bus. Thereafter, while the bus was crossing Suwana
turn, on account of negligent driving of the bus by its driver i.e.
non-claimant No.2, the passengers including the appellant
travelling on the roof of the bus, came in contact with electricity
line, as a result of which the appellant received electric shock and
sustained injuries. On account of such electrocution, there was fire
in the bus as well.
3. After issuance of the notices of the claim petition, reply to
claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.1 while opposing the
submissions made in the claim petition. It was submitted that the
claimant was never asked to travel while sitting on the roof of the
bus and he, at his own, boarded on the roof of the bus. It was
further submitted that the wires of pole installed by the Electricity
Department were not at the prescribed height. The claimant
himself was negligent. It was further submitted that the Electricity
Department was not impleaded as party non-claimant, therefore,
the claim petition was liable to be rejected. It was thus prayed
that the claim petition be rejected.
[2024:RJ-JD:39400] (3 of 7) [CMA-1300/2014]
4. On behalf of non-claimant, reply to claim petition was filed
while denying the facts averred therein. It was further submitted
that the claimant without obtaining ticket travelled in the Bus and
so also without being permitted, he boarded on the roof of the Bus
and there was no fault on the part of non-claimant No.2.
5. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 nobody appeared despite
service and, therefore, exparte proceedings were ordered to be
drawn against him by the Tribunal on 27.03.2010.
6. The learned Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings of the
parties, settled four issues for determination.
7. For proving his case, the appellant examined himself as
AW.1 and examined Dr. Aneesh Ahmed as AW.2 and also placed
on record documents, which were exhibited as Ex. 1 to 25A. The
Non-claimants examined NAW.1 Hanif Ahmed and NAW2 Surya
Prakash. No documentary evidence was tendered by the non-
claimants.
8. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1 and 3, after
considering the evidence produced before it, has recorded a
finding that the claimant, though was educated person, himself
was negligent as he was travelling while sitting on the roof of the
Bus and if he would not have travelled on the roof of the Bus, the
incident would not take place. The learned Tribunal found that
although the accident has occurred, but the claimant has also
been found negligent for the cause of accident. Adverting to Issue
No.3, the learned Tribunal on evaluation of evidence has
apportioned contributory negligence of the claimant to the extent
of 40% while making it 60% vis-a-vis the offending vehicle. The
Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation has partially been
[2024:RJ-JD:39400] (4 of 7) [CMA-1300/2014]
partially allowed by the learned Tribunal in favour of claimant and
while considering the evidence produced before it, the learned
Tribunal quarantined the compensation for the injuries suffered by
him to the tune of Rs.5115/-, however, since there was
contributor negligence on the part of claimant himself, the
claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs.3069/-. For the
amount of compensation, all the non-claimants were held jointly
and severally liable.
9. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 despite service.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant has
strenuously urged that finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1
and 2, to the extent it has found the claimant contributory
negligent for occurrence of accident, is wholly perverse and based
on total misreading of evidence and other material on record. He
further submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing
40% contributory negligence on the claimant for the accident,
which is ex-facie clear from the perusal of Naksha Mauka and
other available material. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has recorded finding about
contributory negligence based on mere ipse-dixit of learned
Tribunal as well as conjectures and surmises, inasmuch as no
material was available on record to show that the claimant has not
taken reasonable care for safety. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the amount of compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and the
learned Tribunal has seriously erred in quantifying the
compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
claimant had suffered 20% permanent disability due the said
[2024:RJ-JD:39400] (5 of 7) [CMA-1300/2014]
accident. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not
granted any compensation with respect to future prospects.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 40% deduction
from the amount of compensation quantified payable to the
claimant is perverse and dehors the prescribed cannons of justice.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is just and reasonable, which calls for no interference. He
further submits that it has come on record that the claimant at his
own travelled on the roof of the Bus, without even informing the
driver and conductor of the Bus, and the aforesaid fact has been
proved by the witnesses NAW.1 and NAW.2, therefore, it is clear
case of contributory negligence as the claimant himself was
negligent while he was travelling in the Bus, while sitting on the
roof of the Bus. A prayer for dismissing the appeal has been made
by the counsel for the respondents.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
impugned award and through scanned the material available on
record.
13. In order to thrash out the matter for ascertaining cause of
accident, resulting in injury, the impugned award deserves judicial
scrutiny on Issue No.1 & 3. On appreciation of evidence, the
learned Tribunal decided Issue No.1 partially against the appellant
by holding the claimant and the driver and conductor of the
offending vehicle negligent for occurrence of accident. While
deciding said issue, the learned Tribunal apportioned in proportion
of 40% negligence of the claimant and 60% to the Bus driver and
conductor. There remains no quarrel that in accident claim cases
[2024:RJ-JD:39400] (6 of 7) [CMA-1300/2014]
doctrine of contributory negligence is of great significance. The
crucial question that has cropped up for consideration is whether
deceased has failed to use reasonable care for safety of either
himself so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of
its own wrong. If the findings on Issue No.1 & 3 are examined on
the touchstone of evidence and other material available on record,
then it would ipso facto reveal that the claimant himself was
negligent, inasmuch as he was travelling while sitting on the roof
of the Bus that too without informing the driver and conductor of
the Bus. This Court thus finds that the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error while deciding the issues No.1 and 3 thereby
holding the claimant himself guilty for occurrence of the accident.
14. This Court finds that the Disability Certificate produced by
the claimant as Ex.24 was of the dated dated 13.09.2012, which
was got prepared and obtained after nine years of the accident.
The learned Tribunal considered the injury report, wherein one
simple injury was recorded and no grievous injury was reported.
Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Tribunal
has rightly brushed aside the permanent disability certificate. The
learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1000/- for the simple injury and
Rs.2500/- have been awarded in favour of claimant towards
hospitalization and Rs.615/- have been awarded towards medical
expenses. Further, a sum of Rs.1000/- have been awarded in
favour of claimant towards pain and suffering.
15. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while assessing
the contributory negligence on part of claimant himself to the
extent of 40%. The amount of compensation awarded by the
[2024:RJ-JD:39400] (7 of 7) [CMA-1300/2014]
learned Tribunal is adequate and no case of enhancement is made
out. The appeal has no force. The misc. appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. No costs.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
45-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
