Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Vimla W/O Late Shri Sohanlal Urf ... vs Ramniwas S/O Shri Narayan Saini on 28 September, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4819/2018
1. Smt. Vimla W/o Late Shri Sohanlal Urf Sonpal, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Gram Jaisinghpura, Post Kothun,
Tehsil And Police Station Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.
2. Ganesh S/o Late Shri Sohanlal Urf Sonpal, Aged About 3
Years, R/o Gram Jaisinghpura, Post Kothun, Tehsil And
Police Station Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.
3. Baby Khushi D/o Late Shri Sohanlal Urf Sonpal, Aged 1
Month, R/o Gram Jaisinghpura, Post Kothun, Tehsil And
Police Station Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.
4. Mangalram Urf Manglaram Lodha S/o Shri Kewalram,
Aged About 46 Years, R/o Gram Jaisinghpura, Post
Kothun, Tehsil And Police Station Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.
5. Smt. Rama Devi W/o Mangalram Urf Manglaram, Aged
About 42 Years, Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt.
Vimla, R/o Gram Jaisinghpura, Post Kothun, Tehsil And
Police Station Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.
----Claimants-Appellants
Versus
1. Ramniwas S/o Shri Narayan Saini, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o- Chandsen, Police Thana Diggi, Tehsil Malpura,
District- Tonk. (Driver Bus No R.j.-08-Pa-0977)
2. Rajasthan Rajya Path Parivahan Nigam Limited, Through
Manager, Head Office Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-
Scheme, Jaipur. (Registered Owner Vehicle Bus No R.j.-
08-Pa-0977)
----Non-claimants-Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4813/2018 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Through Manager, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C- Scheme, Jaipur Represented Through Its Officer Incharge. (Owner Of Bus No Rj-08-Pa-0977)
----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus
1. Smt. Vimla W/o Late Shri Sohanlal @ Sonpal, Aged About 23 Years, (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (2 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018]
2. Ganesh S/o Late Shri Sohanlal @ Sonpal, Aged About 5 Years,
3. Baby Khushi D/o Late Shri Sohanlal @ Sonpal, Aged About 2 Years,
4. Mangalram @ Manglaram Lodha S/o Shri Kevalram, Aged About 48 Years,
5. Smt. Rama Devi W/o Shri Mangalram @ Manglaram Lodha, Aged About 44 Years, Claimants-Respondents No. 2 To 3 Are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Vimla. All are R/o Vill. Jaisinghpura, Post Kothoon, Tehsil And Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur.
---Claimants/Respondents
6. Ramniwas S/o Shri Narayan Saini, aged about 37 years, R/o Chandsen, Police Station Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk. (Driver Of Roadways Bus No. RJ-08-PA- 0977)
----Non-claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma (for claimants) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal (for RSRTC) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/09/2022 Both these miscellaneous appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 22.06.2018, passed by the Court of Special Judge, Printing and Stationary Embezzlement cases and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in MAC case No.506/2017 (Old 417/2016), hence the same are being decided together.
S.B. CMA No. 4813/2018- The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition against the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (3 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018] Corporation Ltd. (for short (RSRTC') for compensation before the Tribunal stating on account of sudden demise of Sohanlal @ Sonpal in a road accident on 04.04.2016. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was going on motorcycle from Jaisinghpura to Chaksu and when he reached near Nai Tod ki Dhani at about 8.30 p.m., suddenly a bus bearing No. RJ-08-PA- 0977 came and the driver of the bus caused the accident while driving in rash and negligent manner. It was also pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased sustained several injuries over his body and died due to those injuries.
The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment dated 22.06.2018, the appellant-RSRTC has submitted this appeal on the ground that the bus was parked at the place 'X' and the bus was not driven by respondent No.6-Ramniwas.
Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC submits that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as dashed his motorcycle into the bus and he was also not wearing helmet. Counsel submits that the case of RSRTC was that the driver of the bus parked the bus and went to the toilet. Counsel submits that the parking lights of the vehicle were on. When the driver returned back then he saw that the deceased dashed himself into the bus, thus, the accident was caused by his own rash and negligent driving. In support of these contentions, statement of respondent No.6 i.e. AW-1-Ramniwas, who was the driver of the vehicle, was recorded before the Tribunal but overlooking his testimony, the Tribunal has decided issue No.1 against the RSRTC (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (4 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018] only on the basis of site plan (Exhibit-7). Counsel further submits that RSRTC cannot be held liable and responsible only on the basis of site plan. Even when the accident has occurred at place 'X', then also it cannot be believed that it was the driver of the bus who caused the accident and pushed the deceased from place 'X' to place 'X1'. Counsel further submits that there were three witnesses namely Ramdhan, Daulat Singh and Mangalram who have signed the site plan (Exhibit-7) but none has been examined before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has relied upon the statement of AW-2 Devi Singh, who is not eye-witness of the accident. Counsel submits that all these facts of the case were overlooked by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has erroneously allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants.
In support of his contentions, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sugni Devi & Ors. reported in 2013 RAR 21. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has decided that the site plan (Exhibit-7) cannot be relied upon for conclusion of contributory negligence.
Thus, the interference of this Court is warranted in the present case.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant-RSRTC and submitted that the accident occurred on 04.04.2016 and thereafter FIR was registered and during the course of investigation, the site plan (Exhibit-7) was prepared by the police and during the course of investigation, the statement of AW-2 Devi Singh was recorded, who was sitting on Dilsukh tea stall, when the accident occurred and he saw the accident. Even in the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (5 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018] site plan (Exhibit-7) there is a mention of Dilsukh tea stall. Counsel submits that mark 'X' is a place where the accident occurred by the driver of the offending vehicle due to driving the vehicle on the wrong side of road and then he dashed the deceased along with his motorcycle at the place marked as 'X1'. After the investigation held, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver for the offences under Sectios 279 and 307-A of IPC before the competent court of law. Counsel further submits that all these facts were appreciated by the Tribunal and issue No.1 has been decided accordingly. Under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.
Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as material placed on record.
After appreciating the arguments on issue No.1, a close scrutiny of the site plan reveals that the accident was occurred on the National Highway No.12 and the offending bus was coming from Jaipur towards Tonk and the accident has occurred at place marked as 'X', which is the extreme wrong side of the road and after causing the accident, driver of the offending bus pushed and dashed the motorcycle along with the deceased to the place marked as 'X-1'. AW-2 Devi Singh was the eye-witness of the incident, who was sitting at Dilsukh tea stall, which has been shown in the site plan. This fact is not in dispute that the statement of AW-2 Devi Singh was recorded by the police during the course of investigation, hence his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.
This Court finds no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of the witness of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (6 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018] site plan namely Ramdhan, Daulat Singh and Mangalram were not recorded before the Tribunal. It is the well settled principle of law that the standards of proof in criminal cases is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt and the principle of strict application of appreciation of evidence is not applicable if the cases filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are decided.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in Civil Appeals No. 4010-4011/2020 has held in Para Nos. 21,22 and 23 as under:-
"21. Relying upon Kartar Singh (supra), in a MACT case this Court (1994) 3 SCC 569 in Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (2019) SCC Online Sc 195 considered the effect of nonexamination of the pillion rider as a witness in a claim petition filed by the deceased of the motorcyclist and held as follows:
"30. Clearly, the evidence given by Bhagchand withstood the respondents' scrutiny and the respondents were unable to shake his evidence. In turn, the High Court has failed to take note of the absence of cross examination of this witness by the respondents, leave alone the Tribunal's finding on the same, and instead, deliberated on the reliability of Bhagchand's (A.D.2) evidence from the viewpoint of him not being named in the list of eye witnesses in the criminal proceedings, without even mentioning as to why such absence from the list is fatal to the case of the appellants. This approach of the High Court is mystifying, especially in light of this Court's observation [as set out in Parmeshwari (supra) and reiterated in Mangla Ram (supra)] that the strict principles of proof in a criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for compensation under the Act and further, that the standard to be followed in such claims is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a witness in motor accident claim who has not been named in the list of witnesses in the criminal case. What is essential is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross examine the concerned witness. Once that is done, it will not be open to them to complain about (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (7 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018] any prejudice caused to them. If there was any doubt to be cast on the veracity of the witness, the same should have come out in cross examination, for which opportunity was granted to the respondents by the Tribunal.
xxx
32. The High Court has not held that the respondents were successful in challenging the witnesses' version of events, despite being given the opportunity to do so. The High Court accepts that the said witness (A.D.2) was cross examined by the respondents but nevertheless reaches a conclusion different from that of the Tribunal, by selectively overlooking the deficiencies in the respondent's case, without any proper reasoning."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with nonexamination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 wherein this Court reiterated that:
"7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pick up van as setup by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi V. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101])"
(emphasis supplied)
23. The observation of the High Court that the author of the FIR (as per its judgment, the ownercumdriver) had not been examined as a witness, and hence adverse inference ought to be drawn against the appellantclaimants, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Not only is the ownercumdriver not the author of the FIR, but instead he is one of the contesting respondents in the Claim Petition who, along with insurance company, is an interested party with a pecuniary stake in the result of the case. If the ownercumdriver of the car were setting up a defence plea that the accident was a result of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (8 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018] not his but the truck driver's carelessness or rashness, then the onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place. The fact that Sanjeev Kapoor chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he was himself at fault. The High Court, therefore, ought not to have shifted the burden of proof."
A perusal of site plan (Exhibit-7) clearly indicates that the deceased was driving the motorcycle on the right side, while the respondent No.6 was driving the offending bus on the extreme wrong side of the road. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was negligent or was at fault either for the occurrence or for the accident.
Thus, on a conscious reading of the documents and after appreciating the site plan, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity and it cannot be presumed that the driver of the bus parked the vehicle on the wrong side of the road and the deceased caused the accident. The findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 are therefore affirmed.
In view of the findings recorded, the appeal filed by the appellant-RSRTC does not contain any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
It is made clear that any expression recorded by this Court, is just a finding for disposal of the present appeal. The findings recorded by this Court will not lead to any conclusion in the criminal trial proceeding before the competent court of law, where respondent No.6 is facing trial. The criminal Court would decide (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (9 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018] the case on the basis of the evidence available before it in accordance with law.
S.B. CMA No. 4819/2018- Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs.10,90,600/- the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of the compensation.
Counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the deceased was having licence to drive light motor vehicles which was placed on record and was marked as Exhibit-14. Counsel submits that in the claim petition filed by the claimants it was pleaded that the deceased was doing the job of agriculture and water supply and the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.30,000/- but without any basis the Tribunal has assessed the income of the Tribunal as Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal could have treated the deceased as a skilled labour and earning minimum wages at the relevant time. Under these circumstances, the impugned award dated 22.06.2018 needs suitable interference of this Court.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RSRTC opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that mere submission of a driving licence of light motor vehicles is not enough to prove the fact that the deceased was doing the job of water supply.
Counsel submits that no evidence in this regard except the oral evidence was submitted by the claimant and the Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. Counsel further submits that even under the other heads, the appropriate amount of compensation has (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) (10 of 10) [CMA-4819/2018] been awarded by the Tribunal, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.
Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as material placed on record.
This Court finds that though it was pleaded in the claim petition filed by the claimants that the claimant was doing the job of agriculture as well as water supply but this fact has not been established by the claimants by submitting any documentary evidence to prove the same. This Court is of the view that no effective argument has been raised on behalf of the claimant as to how the compensation awarded by the tribunal was inadequate.
The Tribunal has not committed any error in determining the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has determined the amount of compensation by taking all the relevant factors and has passed the impugned judgment dated 22.06.2018 which appears to be just and proper.
It is clear that the Tribunal after marshaling the facts and appreciating the evidence on record, rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/-. Thus the findings of the Tribunal are just and proper and the same are not required to be interfered by this Court.
In view of the above discussion, the present appeal filed by the claimants fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J AARZOO ARORA /35-36 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 09:44:40 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)