Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shanti Lal And Anr vs Ramesh Chandra And Ors on 18 October, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1526/2004
Shanti Lal And Anr
----Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1525/2004
Bhagwanlal And Anr
----Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra And Ors
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi
Mr. Abhinash Bhati
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 18/10/2019
1. These Civil Misc. Appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been preferred by the appellants claiming the following reliefs:
CMA No.1526/2004:
"1. That the appeal may kindly be allowed and the deduction of the award @ 50% may kindly be set aside. The award may kindly be enhanced suitably.
2. That the interest may kindly be awarded at the rate of 12% from the filing of the claim petition.
3. That any other or further reliefs which may be deemed to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed."(Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:35:27 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-1526/2004]
CMA No.1525/2004:
"1. That the appeal may kindly be allowed and the deduction of the award @ 50% may kindly be set aside. The award may kindly be enhanced suitably.
2. That the interest may kindly be awarded at the rate of 12% from the filing of the claim petition.
3. That any other or further reliefs which may be deemed to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed."
2. The unfortunate accident had happened on 08.04.2001 at about 3:30 PM when the deceased sons of the appellants Raju @ Rajendra Kumar and Sanjay were going on the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ09 1M 7718. At that time, a Bus bearing registration No.RSH 1868 coming from Pratapgarh collided with the motorcycle, on account of that accident, injuries were caused to both Raju @ Rajendra Kumar and Sanjay, resulting into their death.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants raises two issues, firstly, as to whether the rider of the motorcycle not having license can result into the learned Tribunal holding that he is having contributory negligence in the accident in question.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors. reported in 2008 ACJ 1834, relevant portion whereof reads as under:
"Appellant was driving a two-wheeler bearing registration No. DL- 45 AQ 0731 on 30.10.2003. He was aged about 17 years. He met with an accident, as allegedly respondent No.1 was driving a mini-truck (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:35:27 PM) (3 of 4) [CMA-1526/2004] rashly and negligently. He suffered the following injuries in the said accident:
"1. Crush injury over right root.
2. Fracture fifth M.T. bone and joint.
3. Fracture P.P. little toe. (Total 3 fractures)
4. Abrasions over left side trunk, right-foot, right-leg, right-hand and left-knee
5. Profusely Bleeding.
6. Abrasions and blunt injuries all over body."
8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.
9. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place."
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in case, there was any rash and negligent driving attributed to the motorcycle rider, then it would have been a different case, and in such circumstances, the contributory negligence could have been saddled upon the motorcycle rider.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents however, is not in a position to refute the aforecited precedent law. However, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants on the ground that the negligence of the appellants is writ large, as the motorcycle rider was not having a valid driving license, and thus, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is justified.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case along with the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the precedent law of (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:35:27 PM) (4 of 4) [CMA-1526/2004] Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) is absolutely applicable in the present case as no separate negligence or rash driving has been attributed to the motorcycle rider. The rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver has been found to be proved, and thus, merely because the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving license, cannot become a good ground to saddle any contributory negligence or liability.
8. This Court takes note of the fact that deceased Sanjay was 17 years of age and the deceased Raju @ Rajendra Kumar was 13 years of age at the time of accident.
9. In view of the above, the present misc. appeals are allowed in terms of the revised guidelines for settlement in MACT cases as issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority dated 05.11.2018 and while taking into consideration the judgment of Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala reported in 2014(1) SCC 244, and, thus, in both these appeals, the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each + Rs.30,000/- each as per the Clause (e) sub-clause (c) and (d) of the said guidelines, shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is made. The enhanced amount is to be paid within three months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after three months from today) till actual payment is made. Such amount to be paid after exclusion of the amount already paid.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 58-Zeeshan/-
(Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:35:27 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)