Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chief Manager , Rajasthan State Road ... vs Meena Kumari (2024:Rj-Jd:35170) on 23 August, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:35170]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1957/2020
Chief Manager , Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Beawar Depot, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.) (Non-Claimant Bus Owner)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Meena Kumari W/o Pappu Ram, B/c Harijan , R/o Sojat
City , Distt. Pali (Raj.)
2. Mohit W/o Pappu Ram, Minor Through Natural Guardian
Mother Smt. Meena Kumari , B/c Harijan , R/o Sojat City ,
Distt. Pali (Raj.)
3. Moolsingh S/o Madan Singh, B/c Rajput , R/o Bar , Tehsil
Raipur , Distt. Pali (Raj.) (Driver)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. LK Purohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment 23/08/2024
1. The Instant Appeal has been filed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Beawar Depot, District Ajmer, Rajasthan (hereinafter as 'Appellant/Corporation') under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 09.07.2020 (hereinafter as 'impugned award') passed by the learned MACT, Sojat in MAC Case No. 66/2016 (Smt. Meena Kumari & Anr. vs. Mool Singh & Anr.), seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned award. In alternative the corporation/appellant seeks that in case this court comes to the conclusion that the driver of the corporation vehicle has contributed in the accident, then his contribution may kindly (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:45:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35170] (2 of 8) [CMA-1957/2020] be assessed and the compensation awarded be reduced accordingly.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.07.2014 Smt. Meena (hereinafter as 'respondent no. 1/claimant') and Mr. Mohit (hereinafter as 'respondent no. 2/claimant') were travelling in a tempo-three wheeler bearing registration no. RJ22 P 0380 (hereinafter as 'tempo') along with four other persons from Sojat to Pali, which was being driven reasonably and on the correct side of the road, and at around 1-1.30 PM somewhere ahead of Dantiya Balaji Temple on Pali road, a roadways bus bearing registration no. RJ36 PA 1934 (hereinafter as 'the offending vehicle'), which was being driven by Mr. Mool Singh (hereinafter as 'driver/respondent no. 3') in rash, negligent manner and at a very high speed came from the opposite direction(Pali to Sojat) and while trying to overtake a vehicle dashed into the tempo's front portion. As a result of the accident both the claimants(Respondents no. 1 and 2), who were travelling in the tempo sustained injuries. A FIR no. 257/2014 was lodged by one - Kailash Ram regarding the accident at police station Sojat and the police after investigation filed a challan against the driver(Respondent no. 3) of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, a claim petition MAC Case No. 66/2014 was filed by the claimants(Respondents no. 1 and 2) before MACT, Sojat(hereinafter as 'learned tribunal') seeking compensation from respondent no. 3 and appellant herein.
3. It was alleged by the appellant before the learned tribunal that driver/respondent no. 3 was driving the offending vehicle a (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:45:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35170] (3 of 8) [CMA-1957/2020] slow speed and in the right lane however, the driver of the tempo (RJ22 P 0380), which was carrying passengers more than its capacity, and was driving the tempo negligently and at high speed came from the wrong side and could not control the speed of the tempo as a result of which it dashed into the offending vehicle.
4. It was further alleged by the appellant before the tribunal that the claimants have neither sustained any permanent disability and nor have they produced any document regarding the permanent disability. He also alleged before the tribunal that no serious injury was sustained by respondent no. 1. He further submitted that the driver and owner of the tempo were not made parties to the claim petition.
5. As per the pleadings of the parties the learned parties framed five issues which are being reproduced as follows:
"1. आया दिनांक 26.07.2014 को दिन में करीब 1-1.30 बजे मौजा पाली सोजत हाईवे पर दातिया बालाजी मन्दिर से थोडा आगे अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 मूलसिंह द्वारा अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 के नाम पंजीकृत स्वामित्व के वाहन रोडवेज बस आर.जे.36 पी.ए. 1934 को तेज गति व लापरवाही से चलाते हुए सामने से आ रहे टै म्पू के जोरदार टक्कर मारी जिससे टै म्पू में बैठे मंगलसिंह, दिनेश, ज्योति, मीना, मोहित व हिमांशु को चोटे आई। उक्त दर्घ ु टना में आई चोटों से ज्योति की मत्ृ यु कारित हो गई? .... प्रार्थीगण
2. आया अप्रार्थी संख्या 1 मूलसिंह वाहन अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 के नाम पंजीकृत/स्वामित्व के वाहन रोडवेज बस संख्या आर.जे. 36 पी.ए.1934 को अप्रार्थी संख्या 2 के नियोजन में रहते हुए नियोजन हितार्थ चला रहा था? ...प्रार्थीगण (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:45:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35170] (4 of 8) [CMA-1957/2020]
3. आया प्रार्थीगण क्लेम याचिका के अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति राशि प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी हैं, यदि हां तो क्षतिपूर्ति राशि क्या हो? ...प्रार्थीगण
4. आया अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा प्रस्तत ु जवाब क्लेम में उठाये गये आक्षेपों के आधार पर अप्रार्थीगण क्षतिपर्ति ू राशि की अदायगी हे तु उत्तरदायी नहीं हैं? ......अप्रार्थीगण
5. अनुतोष "
6. The claimants examined respondent no. 1 as witness AW1 and exhibited total 40 documents.
7. After hearing both the parties, the learned tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 09.07.2020 allowed MAC No. 66/2016 and awarded Rs. 53,264 to claimant/respondent no. 1 and Rs. 7205/ to claimant/respondent no. 2 and held driver/respondent no. 3 and the appellant herein jointly and severally to pay the compensation.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/corporation has preferred the instant appeal.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/corporation that the driver/respondent no. 3 of the offending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident and the evidences showing innocence of the driver/respondent no. 3 have been ignored by the learned tribunal. He further submits that no independent eyewitness was examined by the claimants however, the learned tribunal held the driver/respondent no.3 negligent merely on the basis of the challan filed by the police.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/corporation further submits that the learned tribunal has (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:45:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35170] (5 of 8) [CMA-1957/2020] wrongly awarded an amount of Rs. 4,914/- to the respondent no. 1 for loss of income and Rs. 2000/- to respondent no. 2 for transportation without there being any proof. He also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in not computing the compensation in accordance with the schedule attached to Section 163A of the Act. He also submits that the tribunal has awarded the compensation without any proof in respect to the injuries.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/corporation submits that the interest rate of 8% as awarded by the learned tribunal is against the principle of law and the prevailing bank rates.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/corporation submits in alternative that if this court arrives at the finding that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and on account of negligent driving of the driver/respondent no. 3 the accident occurred, then liability of the appellant herein should be ascertained in accordance with the principle of contributory negligence.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants(respondent no. 1 and 2) that driver/respondent no. 3 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and while trying to overtake dashed into the tempo which was coming from the opposite direction. Thus, the accident happened on account of sole negligence of the driver/respondent no. 3.
14. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is clear from the perusal of the record that the offending vehicle was coming from Pali to Sojat and the tempo was coming (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:45:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35170] (6 of 8) [CMA-1957/2020] from Sojat to Pali. This court does not find force with the contention of the appellant/corporation regarding the negligence of the driver of the tempo as only due to the work that was going on, on the one of the lanes of the highway, the tempo was on the same lane of the highway as that of the offending vehicle but was travelling in the correct side of the lane in the opposite direction(From Sojat to Pali). However, the accident occurred solely because the driver/respondent no. 3 tried to overtake a vehicle without considering the condition of the road and thus, dashed into the tampo which was coming from the opposite direction. Thus, the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver(respondent no. 3) of the offending vehicle. Further, no rebuttal evidence was produced by the appellant/corporation before the learned tribunal to the latter's satisfaction and hence, the learned tribunal rightly decided the issue no. 4 against the appellant/corporation. Therefore, the principle of contributory negligence cannot be made applicable in the present case.
15. Further, the contention of the appellant/corporation that the learned tribunal has erred in not taking into account the schedule attached to Section 163A of the Act is also not tenable as the present claim petition was not filed under Section 163A of the Act but under Section 160 and Section 140 of the Act.
16. Further, it is clear the perusal of the impugned award that after perusing the material available on record the learned tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under the head of injuries to both the claimants(respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2). Thus, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:45:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35170] (7 of 8) [CMA-1957/2020] appellant/corporation that the learned tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of injuries without there being any proof, does not find force.
17. Further, the contention of the appellant/corporation that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding actual loss of income without there being any proof is also not tenable as in absence of any documentary evidence regarding income of the respondent no. 1, the learned tribunal rightly assessed the income of the respondent no. 1 as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker in the year 2014 i.e., Rs. 4914/- and awarded Rs. 4914/- under the head of actual loss of income.
18. Another contention raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/corporation is that the learned tribunal awarded transportation charges to both the claimants(respondent no. 1 and
2) without there being any proof. However, the same is not tenable as the learned tribunal, on the basis of material available on record, noted that the respondent no.1 and 2 had to go for consultation to specialised doctors for their treatment and thus, the learned tribunal rightly awarded the transportation charges to both the claimants. Thus, in view of the judgments of Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs Namita Sekhon & Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 793, the amount awarded by the learned tribunal under the head of transportation charges was justified.
19. In view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, this court finds that the appeal preferred by the appellant/corporation is devoid of any merit.
(Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:45:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:35170] (8 of 8) [CMA-1957/2020]
20. Therefore, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 2-ajayS/-
(Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:45:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)