Dismissed

Smt Geeta and Anr. v. Manager R S R T C and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 May 2015CMA/2147/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this high court judgment, the bench dismissed special civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Road Transport Corporation and the heirs of a deceased road accident victim. The court upheld the lower Tribunal's award of Rs. 5,02,000 compensation, finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's findings regarding contributory negligence and the computation of damages.

What did the court decide?

The appeals filed by both the RSRTC and the claimants were dismissed, and the Tribunal's judgment awarding Rs. 5,02,000 was confirmed.

Smt Geeta and Anr. Vs Manager R S R T C… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶3

J U D G M E N T S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2147/2014 (Smt. Geeta & Anr. Versus Manager, RSRTC & Anr.)

¶4

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 485/2014 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 410/2014 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Versus Smt. Geeta & Anr.)

¶5

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 1.05.2015

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Anshul Sharma, counsel for the claimant(s) Mr. Deepak Goyal, counsel for the RSRTC

¶8

Since both these appeals relate to one incident and arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment.

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petitions before the Tribunal with regard to death of death of Ravi Kumar in a road accident, which is said to have taken place on 11.10.2010. Thereafter notices were issued; reply was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, decreeing an amount of Rs. 5,02,000/- as compensation in favour of claimants.

¶10

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, one appeal has been filed by RSRTC and another appeal has been filed by the claimants for

¶11

¶12

enhancement of compensation.

¶13

Learned counsel for the RSRTC has contended that the Tribunal has committed error while passing the award. He has further contended that there was no negligence of the driver because at railway crossing, around 2030 students were trying to board in moving bus and during this course, the deceased fell down and came underneath of rear wheel. The deceased died due to his own negligence. He has further contended that in alternate, contributory negligence to the extent of 75% should have been fastened to the deceased. The learned Tribunal has utterly failed to consider these aspects of the matter. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal should be quashed and set-aside.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal has not properly considered the income and age of the deceased. He has further contended that the Tribunal while computing the compensation, has not awarded proper amount under the head of love and affection and funeral expenses. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶16

¶17

parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶18

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter ad-longum and rightly decided all the issues. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:

¶19

"इस पक�र समस� स�क� क� व��चन स� �ह ननषकर� ननकल�� ह� कक द�न��क 11-102010 क� स�बह 7.00 बज� स�ल�ब�� फ�टक क� प�स सडक आम प�ललस थ�न� ब��न� जजल� भर�प�र ख�त म, ��हन र�ज0 र�ड��ज बस स�ख�� आर.ज�.05/प/.ए.0012 क� उसक� च�लक अप�थ2 स�ख�� 02 न� ��हन क� ��ज गन� ए�� ल�पर��ह5 स� चल�कर म6�क रव�क�म�र म, टककर म�र �5 जजसस� रव�क�म�र क� ��र�टन� म, आई च�ट: क� क�रण उसक< म6त�� क�रर� ह�ई। इस �रह �ह व��दक बबन�C प�थ2गण/�� र: क� पक म, ननरण � कक�� ज�� ह�।"

¶20

� � In this view of the matter, I do not

¶21

find any ground to take a different view, than that of the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the RSRTC as well as the claimants, being without any substance, are hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶22

Stay application(s) also stand dismissed accordingly.

¶23

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶24

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶25

Dilip Khandelwal PA

Smt Geeta and Anr. v. Manager R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geeta and Anr. v. Manager R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Soorta Vs Ram Niwas and Others

Amarjeet Singh Vs Kulveer Singh and Others

Smt Kanta Devi and Ors. Vs Surjeet and Ors.

Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Vs Shantilal Jain and Ors.

I C I Ci Lombard General Insurance Co. Lt Vs Smt Rehana Bano and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ishwari Lal and Others