Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R.S.R.T.C.Depot Dungarpur vs Smt.Tej Kuwar & Ors on 23 April, 2012
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:JUDGMENT:
R.S.R.T.C., Depot Dungarpur
Vs.
Smt. Tej Kuwar & Others
(S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.611/2012)
DATE OF JUDGMENT : April 23, 2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
_________________________________________
Mr. Dinesh Joshi for the appellant.
BY THE COURT :
Instant miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Depot Dungarpur under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and challenged the judgment and award dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dungarpur in Claim Case No.128/2008, by which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.68,100/- to respondent- claimant No.1 for the injuries sustained by her in the accident.
As per facts of the case, a claim petition was filed 2 under Section 166 of the Act before the Claim Tribunal, Doongarpur by claimant-respondent No.1, in which, it is submitted that on 22.06.2007 when the claimant was travelling in the Roadways bus No.RJ-12/P/1076, at that time, near Simalwara petrol-pump, due to negligent driving of the bus driver she fell down from the bus and received serious injuries including fracture in the right hand and she was treated for long time in the hospital. The claimant who was 55 years old at the time of the accident claimed that she is earning Rs.4,000/- per month from agriculture work and due to injuries sustained in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus of the Corporation she is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,62,000/-.
The Corporation after receiving notice from the Claim Tribunal filed their reply. Thereafter, issues were framed by the Tribunal and, finally, after adjudication of the issues, the Claim Tribunal awarded Rs.68,100/- in favour of the claimant along with 6% interest from the date of filing claim petition before the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the award dated 23.12.2011 vehemently argued that the 3 impugned award is totally erroneous because the Court has committed error while exonerating the insurance company from the liability because no documentary proof was placed on record to prove that the bus driver was not having valid driving licence. The licence was initially issued for the period from 14.03.2001 to 13.03.2004 and the said licence was renewed from time to time and it is in existence up to 18.08.2013, therefore, the Tribunal committed error while exonerating the insurance company solely on the ground that driver of the vehicle was not possessing the valid licence.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the accident occurred due to total negligence of claimant herself but this aspect of the matter has been over-looked by the Claim Tribunal. The Claim Tribunal committed serious error while relying upon the evidence of the claimant and other witnesses because there are so many contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, the award impugned deserved to be quashed.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, it emerges from the facts that appellant Corporation is not disputing the fact of the occurrence and injuries sustained 4 by the claimant but it is pleaded that bus was not in motion and it was standing and due to negligence of claimant herself she fell down from the bus and received serious injuries, therefore, the liability fastened upon the Corporation deserves to be quashed.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant I have perused the judgment impugned and pleadings of the appeal. Admittedly, to prove the claim statement of A.W.- 2 Tej Kuwar was recorded and documents with regard to treatment along with disability certificate were produced on record. The Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 held that the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus near Simalwara petrol pump, in which, the claimant received serious and simple injuries. The Tribunal gave the finding that the insurance company being insurer is first liable to indemnify the claimant and, then, to recover the amount from the Corporation because, at the time of the accident the driver of the bus was not having valid licence, therefore, the insurance company cannot escape its liability in regard to third party risk but can recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle.
5
In my opinion, the Claim Tribunal has not committed any wrong while passing the award of Rs.68,100/- for medical expenses and 14.2% permanent disability while taking into consideration the fact that the injured received one serious and one simple injuries and being lady in future she loses her efficiency to work. Therefore, no case for interference in the impugned award is made out.
This miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.