Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Rajendra Singh And Anr. on 19 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2006)ACC181, 2007ACJ680, 2006WLC(RAJ)UC57
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
JUDGMENT R.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The appellant Corporation has challenged the award dated 1.5.2004 whereby learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Tribunal') awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,06,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum to the respondent-claimant for the injuries suffered by him in an accident involving a Roadways bus.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.2.2000 when Rajendra Singh, respondent, was returning from a marriage from Khairthal to Behrod in a jeep along with others, a Roadways bus, bearing No. RJ 02-P 0927, rashly and negligently hit the jeep. Resultantly, respondent-claimant suffered fractures of right leg and right hand. He also sustained an injury on his nose. Since his condition was rather serious, he was immediately referred from Behrod Hospital to the S.M.S. Hospital in Jaipur. Twice, he had to undergo operation. During the course of operation, rods had to be inserted in both his fractured leg and hand. Consequently, the claimant had suffered a permanent disablement of 15 to 30 per cent. Therefore, he filed a claim petition against the Roadways before the learned Tribunal.
3. In their written statements, the Roadways has claimed that the accident had occurred not because of the negligence of the bus driver, but because of rashness and negligence of the jeep driver. Therefore, it claimed that it was not liable for the accident; it is not liable for payment of any compensation to the injured person.
4. In order to substantiate his claim, the claimant examined himself as a witness and submitted a number of documents. The appellant Corporation neither examined any witness nor submitted any document in its defence. The learned Tribunal framed four issues. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide award dated 1.5.2004 the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,06,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent to the claimant. Since the appellant Corporation is aggrieved by the said award, it has filed the present appeal before us.
5. Ms. Shruti Dixit, the learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation, has raised a single contention before us. According to her, the claimant had arrayed only the Roadways and its bus driver as parties. However, he had not arrayed the driver, owner and the insurance company of the jeep as a respondent in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. According to her, the learned Tribunal has ignored this fact. Hence, the impugned award is not maintainable.
6. We have not only examined the impugned order but have also considered the contention raised by learned Counsel for the Corporation.
7. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that in a motor accident claim, tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the compensation. The said principle was enunciated by the court in the case of Mohan Lai v. Balwant Kaur 1 (1985) ACC 322. The said principle has also been reiterated by this Court in the case of Sampat Kunwar Bai v. Gurmeet Singh 1988 ACJ 342 (Rajasthan). In this case, it was clearly held that although joint tortfeasors may be proper parties, but they are not necessary parties to a claim petition. Since the joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable, therefore, the claimant can choose to file claim petition against and recover the damages from any one of them. Sections 140(1) and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, clearly reflect the settled position of law as mentioned above. Thus, the claimant was within his rights in not arraying the driver, the owner and the insurance company of the jeep as a party to the claim petition. Even in the absence of these three parties, the claim application was maintainable. Hence, the above contention raised by the appellant Corporation is not available to them.
Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal. It is hereby dismissed.