Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R.S.R.T.C vs Smt.Rasida And Ors. ... on 21 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:39290]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 796/2009
Chairman, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rasida W/o late Shri Anardeen, Resident of Athuna
Darwaja, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.
2. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 797/2009
Chairman, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rasidana W/o late Shri Anardeen,
2. Madina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
3. Sabina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
4. Laden @ Mubarak S/o late Shri Anardeen,
The respondent No.4 is minor through his natural guardian
mother Smt. Rasidana W/o late Shri Anardeen
All residents of Athuna Darwaja, Kuchaman City, Tehsil
Nawan, District Nagaur.
5. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 798/2009
Chairman, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (2 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
Versus
1. Rasida W/o late Shri Anardeen,
2. Madina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
3. Sabina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
4. Laden @ Mubarak S/o late Shri Anardeen,
The respondent No.4 is minor through his natural guardian
mother Smt. Rasidana W/o late Shri Anardeen
All residents of Athuna Darwaja, Kuchaman City, Tehsil
Nawan, District Nagaur.
5. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 799/2009
Chairman, Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation, Chomu
House, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Aabid Ahmed S/o Shri Tajudeen, Resident of Athuna
Darwaja, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.
2. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1456/2011
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its
Chairman, Chaumu House, Jaipur. (Owner of Bus No. RJ-10-P-
3567)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Rasida W/o W/o late Shri Anardeen,
2. Miss Madina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
3. Miss Sabina D/o late Shri Anardeen,
4. Shri Laden @ Mubarak S/o late Shri Anardeen,
All residents of Athuna Darwaja, Kuchaman City, Tehsil
Nawan, District Nagaur.
(Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:39290] (3 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
Respondent No.4 is minor through his natural guardian
mother Smt. Rasidana W/o late Shri Anardeen
5. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shri Ghirdhari Singh, Resident of
Kukdod, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur. (Bus Driver of Bus
No.RJ-10-P-3567)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Godara.
Mr. Kasturchand.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma, for
respondents/claimants.
None present despite service on
driver/respondent No.5 in CMA
No.1456/2011
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment 21/09/2024
1. These misc. appeals have been filed by the appellant- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation') under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 27.03.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar ('Tribunal') in MAC Cases No.73/2006, 28/2006, 71/2006, 36/2006 and 72/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the respondents/claimants and awarded compensation in favour of respective respondents/claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petitions.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation submits that service upon driver/non-claimant No.1 of offending Bus may be dispensed with at the risk and peril of the Corporation.
3. Ordered accordingly.
(Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39290] (4 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents/ claimants filed claim petitions claiming compensation on account of death of Anardeen and Imran and for the injuries suffered by Abid Ahmed and Saddam (who subsequently died) in the accident, which took place on 02.11.2005. In the claim petitions, it was inter-alia stated that on 02.11.2005, Anardeen (deceased) along with his sons, namely, Sakeel, Imran, Saddan and Abid was going on his motorcycle to handover some ornaments and meet his relatives. The said motorcycle was plied by Sakeel. The accident took place near Khandli Kothi turn, when the non-claimant No.1 driver of offending Bus (RJ-10-P-3567) while plying the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, as a result of which the riders and pillion riders of the motorcycle sustained injuries and two of them died. The offending Bus was in the registered ownership of appellant Corporation and the same was plied by non-claimant No.1 under the employment and instructions of his owner. The respondents/claimants thus filed claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.33,60,000/-, 34,18,000/-, 41,94,000/-, 37,50,000/- and 20,80,000/- respectively.
5. After registration of the claim petitions, summons were issued to the non-claimants. No reply to the claim petition was filed on behalf of non-claimant No.1.
6. On behalf of non-claimant No.2 i.e. appellant, reply to claim petition was filed while raising certain preliminary objections. It was stated by the appellant that there were five persons riding on the motorcycle and the motorcycle was plied by its rider rashly and negligently and it dashed to the standing bus. The rider of the (Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39290] (5 of 11) [CMA-796/2009] motorcycle himself violated the rules and in complete derogation of the statutory rules, the motorcycle was plied by its rider. It was further stated that owner of motorcycle (RJ-32-2M-7664) though was a necessary party to the lis, was not made party non-claimant in the claim petition, therefore, the claim petitions were liable to be rejected.
7. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues, including relief. In support of their claim petitions, the claimants examined AW.1 Rasida, AW.2 Yakub Ali Bhati, AW.3 Kundanran, AW.4 Islamudeen and AW.5 Abid and 19 documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, AW.1 Shaitan Singh, NAW.2 Parmeshwar Singh were examined and two documents were exhibited.
8. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard arguments of both the parties and after considering the material produced before it vide impugned judgment and award dated 27.03.2009 partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.3,81,000/-, Rs.3,21,000/-, Rs.13,200/- and Rs.3,40,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of respective claimants and the liability was fastened upon the non-claimants to pay the compensation.
9. In CMA Nos.796/2009, 797/2009, 798/2009 and 799/2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court admitted the appeal/s on 15.07.2009 and thereafter vide order dated 11.11.2009, the stay application was disposed of while staying the execution of the award against the appellant subject to appellant depositing 50% of the awarded sum before the learned Tribunal after taking account the amount already deposited by the appellant within one (Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39290] (6 of 11) [CMA-796/2009] month. The amount upon being deposited, was directed to be disbursed to the claimants on the condition that in case the appeal is allowed, the claimants shall refund the amount with interest @ 9% p.a.
10. In CMA No.1456/2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2011 while admitting the appeal directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal within a period of one month and stayed the execution of the impugned award dated 27.03.2009 in respect of remaining amount of compensation. The amount upon being deposited was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants in terms of award passed by the Tribunal. Despite service of notice on non- claimant No.1/driver, nobody had put in appearance on his behalf.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation vehemently submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while deciding the issue No.1 in favour of respondents/claimants and against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation submits that from the evidence brought on record, it was clearly established by the appellants that it was the rider of the motorcycle, who was plying the motorcycle rashly and negligently at a high speed, that too with four other pillion riders, against the riding capacity of two, however, this aspect has not at all been considered by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it was clear case of contributory negligence, however, the learned Tribunal has not applied the maxim of res ipsa loquitur properly, and has not followed the principle of contributory negligence while deciding the issue No.1 against the appellant. He further submits that from the statements (Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39290] (7 of 11) [CMA-796/2009] of the witnesses and other material available on record, it was proved by the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, however, the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the defence taken by the appellant without assigning any reasons whatsoever.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that while deciding the Issue No.3 in favour of claimants, the learned Tribunal has not considered the various judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that in the case of death of a child who was 5 years of age at the time of accident, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and the same ought to be suitably reduced.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that while awarding compensation under the loss of income in favour of respective respondents/claimants to tune of Rs.3,81,000/- and Rs.3,21,200/- the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Anardeen and Imran at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2400/- respectively without there being any plausible and convincing evidence led by the claimants in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that for the injures suffered by Abid Ahmed, the learned Tribunal has awarded excess compensation.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal while deciding Claim Case No.72/2006, the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in deducting 1/3 rd income of deceased-Sakeel and the same ought to be 1/2, inasmuch as the deceased was unmarried.
(Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39290] (8 of 11) [CMA-796/2009]
15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submits that a perusal of the site plan prepared by the concerned authority, would reveal that the offending vehicle i.e. Bus was driven by its driver rashly and negligently, on account of which the accident took place. He further submits that offending Bus was inspected, wherein the breaks of the Bus were found to be not 'proper', which was proved by exhibiting Ex.7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants further submits that the no independent witnesses have been examined by the appellant/non-claimant to show that there was negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle. He further submits that even the passengers sitting in the Bus have not been examined on behalf of appellant-Corporation, whereas the claimants have examined independent witnesses viz. AW.2, 3 and 4, who have specifically deposed that the Bus was driven by its driver rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the non-claimants have failed to prove that one of the rider was even sitting on the petrol tank of the motorcycle.
16. Insofar as CMA No.1456/2011 preferred by the appellant- Corporation assailing the judgment and award passed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd from the income of deceased, Sakeel, while taking into consideration the fact that father of deceased expired earlier and there were four dependents viz. mother, two sisters and one brother. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants placed reliance on judgments passed in the cases of Mohammed (Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39290] (9 of 11) [CMA-796/2009] Siddique & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. : Civil Appeal No.79/2020 decided on 08.01.2020, Sudhir Kumar Raman v. Surinder Singh & Ors. : ACTC 2008 (1) 567, RSRTC v. Kirandeep Kaur & Ors. : ACTE 2004 194, RSRTC v. Prakash Chand Bhargava & Ors. : ACTC 2007 (1) 314, Gopal Kanwar (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shravan & Ors. : ACTC 2015 (1) 493 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Santosh Devi & Ors. : SBCAM No.324/2010 decided on 15.04.2013.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants thus prayed that the appeals preferred by the appellant Corporation may be dismissed.
18. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record and the judgment cited at Bar.
19. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no.1 has considered the result of investigation of the FIR lodged by the claimants of the accident. The investigation of the FIR (Ex.1) culminated in the submission of a charge sheet against the driver/non-claimant No.1 for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC in the competent criminal court. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the statements of NAW.1 Shaitan Singh and NAW2 Parmeshwar Singh (driver/non-claimant No.1), who have though deposed that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of rider of the cycle, however, no documentary evidence was produced by the non-claimants in this regard. On the other hand, the claimants exhibited Ex.4 i.e. charge sheet, which was filed against the driver (Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39290] (10 of 11) [CMA-796/2009] of the offending Bus, wherein the negligence was attributed to the driver of the bus.
20. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has observed that the non-claimants failed to prove that there were five occupants riding on the motorcycle at the time of accident and that there was negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle and, thus in the considered view of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly not found any negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle.
21. This Court also considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 rd income of deceased, Sakeel and the same ought to be 1/2, inasmuch as the deceased was unmarried. This Court finds that as the MAC Cases No.72/2006(seeking compensation on account of the death of Sakeel) was filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore the standard deduction of 1/3 on account of personal expenses was applicable. Also, since father of the deceased Sakeel expired earlier and after his death, mother, two sisters and one brother, would be considered as dependents of deceased Sakeel. Considering the above facts situation, the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3 amount of income for the personal expenses of deceased, though he was unmarried. This Court is thus of the view that the deduction made by the learned Tribunal to the extent of 1/3 is justified and the same calls for no interference by this Court.
22. This Court also considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respective claimants. This Court after having regard to the submissions made by counsel for parties and the (Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39290] (11 of 11) [CMA-796/2009] having perused the record, finds that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of respective claimants is just and appropriate. Therefore also, the same calls for no interference by this Court. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in death case of Sakeel under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is also in accordance with the Schedule appended and, therefore, the same also calls for no interference.
23. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the misc. appeals preferred by the appellant Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 27.03.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar. The misc. appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 95 to 99-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 08:57:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)