[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R S R T C vs Smt. Pushpa And Ors (2026:Rj-Jd:7382) on 10 February, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:7382]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 100/2004
The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
Pali Depot, Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Pushpa W/o Shri Gopal, by caste Gupta (Agarwal),
R/o.Ghosiwada, Sojat City, Tehsil Sojat, Distt. Pali (Raj.).
Respondent-Claimant.
2. Ismail Khan S/o Shri Rahman Kathat, R/o.Lulwa, presently
Fathepuriya, 2-A, Ward No.36, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondent-Non-Claimant.
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shashi Vaishnav for
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
10/02/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
award dated 05.07.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sojat, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in Claim Case No.01/2002, whereby, the claim
application preferred by the respondent-claimant has been allowed
and a sum of Rs.17,500/- has been awarded to the claimant-
respondent. Aggrieved of the judgment and award dated
05.07.2003, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-
RSRTC.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7382] (2 of 4) [CMA-100/2004]
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that on
15.12.2000, the Bus of the appellant being registration No.R.J.22/
P0790 driven by Ismail Khan met with an accident with a Truck
Troller being registration No.H.R.46/7028. In the accident, the
claimant respondent sustained number of injuries for which she
was extended the treatment. An F.I.R. of the accident was also
registered. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident,
the claimant preferred a claim petition before learned Tribunal.
After framing the issues, learned Tribunal adjudicated the claim of
the respondent-claimant and decided the same vide its judgment
and award dated 05.07.2003 and an amount of Rs.17,500/- has
been awarded to her. Aggrieved of the same, the present appeal
has been preferred by the appellant-RSRTC.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that
the Bus was being driven by the driver Ismail Khan on its correct
side and for the sole negligence of the driver of Truck Troller, the
accident occurred. She submitted that there was no fault on the
part of Bus driver and, therefore, the injuries sustained by the
claimant-respondent were not on account of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Bus. She submitted that the driver of the
Truck Troller driving it rashly and negligently and on account of
applying the sudden breaks without any indication, the Bus, which
was being driven by the driver of the appellant, dashed into it at
the back side, resulting into the respondent-claimant having
suffered number of injuries. Learned counsel submits that since
the claim application was filed without impleading the Insurance
Company of the Truck Troller, therefore, the same was not
maintainable and the liability of paying the compensation should
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7382] (3 of 4) [CMA-100/2004]
have been fastened upon the driver, owner and Insurance
Company of the Truck Troller. She further submits that despite no
fault of the driver of the Bus, the entire liability to indemnify the
compensation amount has been fastened upon the appellant-
RSRTC. She, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be
allowed and the judgment and award dated 05.07.2003 may be
quashed and set aside qua the present appellant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellant and submits that learned Tribunal has rightly
evaluated the evidence and after carefully scrutinizing the same, it
has come to the conclusion that the Bus was being driven rashly
and negligently by its driver Ismail Khan thereby causing accident
in which the respondent-claimant has sustained injuries. He
further submits that learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the
amount of compensation in the present case and since the Bus
was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, therefore,
the liability to pay the amount of compensation has rightly been
fastened upon the appellant. He, therefore, prays that no
interference is warranted in the present case by this Hon'ble
Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case.
7. The Truck Troller was being plied in front of the Bus, which
was being driven by its driver Ismail Khan at a higher speed and
although he has seen the Truck Troller from quite a distance, but
despite that, the distance between the Truck Troller and the Bus
was not adequately maintained by him. Since the Truck Troller
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7382] (4 of 4) [CMA-100/2004]
applied breaks, the Bus, which was at a close distance to it,
dashed with it causing accident in the present case. Thus, the fact
that the Bus was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver
Ismail Khan which met with an accident on 15.12.2000 cannot be
ruled out. A persual of site plan and other ancillary documents
clearly show that the Bus, which was being driven rashly and
negligently, was not maintaining a safe distance from the Truck
Troller, which was being plied ahead of it and since the adequate
distance was not maintained between the two vehicles, the driver
of the Bus was not having time to apply the break at a safe
distance and, therefore, the Bus dashed into the rear part of the
Truck Troller causing multiple injuries to the respondent-claimant.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the evaluation of the
evidence and appreciation done by learned Tribunal does not
suffer from any infirmity and it has rightly been held by learned
Tribunal that the negligence of the driver of the Bus is writ large in
the present case. Thus, the judgment and award passed by
learned Tribunal does not call for any interference and the appeal
is dismissed.
9. The stay application and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
15-SanjayS/-
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:47:57 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
