Dismissed

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sinjari

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2018CMA/2452/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of four special civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court found no error in the Tribunal's findings on liability and compensation quantum, dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

All four special civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed, leaving the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal intact.

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2395/2018

¶4

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through Chief Manager, Bikaner. (Owner of Bus No. RJ-32-PA-2184)

¶5

Traffic Inspector, Depot - Nagaur. (Owner of Bus No, RJ09-PA-0948)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Radha W/o Govind Puri, aged about 65 Years, B/c Goswami, R/o Jakheda, Teh - Degana ,dist - Nagaur.

¶9

Kan Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh, aged about 30 years, B/c Rajpur, R/o Keu, P.s. Dungergarh, Dist. - Bikaner. (Driver Of Bus No. RJ-32-Pa-2184)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1939/2018

¶12

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through Chief Manager, Bikaner. (Owner of Bus No. RJ-32-PA-2184)

¶13

Traffic Inspector, Depot - Nagaur. (Owner Of Bus No, RJ09-PA-0948)

¶14

----Appellants

¶15

Versus

¶16

Khiyan Devi W/o Bhagu Puri, aged 40 years (died during the proceeding) deleted.

¶17

Bherun S/o Bahgu Puri, aged 14 years,

¶18

Ravi S/o Bhagu Puri, aged 07 years,

¶19

Puja D/o Bhagu Puri, aged 17 years,

¶20

Suman D/o Bhagu Puri, aged 15 years,

¶21

Sita D/o Bhagu Puri, aged 10 years,

¶22

Radha W/o Govind Puri, aged 65 years, all by caste Goswami, R/o Jakheda, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

¶23

(Being minors respondent No.2 to 6 are represented through their natural guardian their grand mother Radha Devi i.e. respondent No.7)

¶24

Kan Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh, aged about 30 years,

¶25

(2 of 8)

¶26

B/c Rajpur, R/o Keu, P.s. Dungergarh, Dist. - Bikaner. (Driver Of Bus No. RJ-32-Pa-2184)

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1992/2018

¶29

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through Chief Manager, Bikaner. (Owner of Bus No. RJ-32-PA-2184)

¶30

Traffic Inspector, Depot - Nagaur. (Owner of Bus No.RJ09-PA-0948)

¶31

----Appellants

¶32

Versus

¶33

Bhanwari Devi W/o Nemi Chand, aged 55 years,

¶34

Nemni Chand S/o Hukma Ram, aged 60 years, all by caste Jangid, R/o Gachhipura, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Being mentally retarded, the respondent No.2 is being represented through respondent No.1.

¶35

Kan Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh, by caste Rajput, aged 30 years, R/o Keu, P.S. Dungargarh, District Bikaner. (Driver of Bus No.RJ-32-PA-2184)

¶36

----Respondents

¶37

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2452/2018

¶38

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through Chief Manager, Bikaner. (Owner of Bus No. RJ-32-PA-2184)

¶39

Traffic Inspector, Depot - Nagaur. (Owner of Bus No.RJ09-PA-0948)

¶40

----Appellants

¶41

Versus

¶42

Sinjari W/o Late Mohan Lal, aged 70 years, by caste Balai, R/o Baipura, Merta Road, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.

¶43

Kan Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh, by caste Rajput, aged 30 years, R/o Keu, P.S. Dungargarh, District Bikaner. (Driver of Bus No.RJ-32-PA-2184)

¶44

----Respondents

¶45

(3 of 8)

¶46

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.R. Pareek. For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Joshi.

¶47

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶48

Order

¶49

12/09/2018 BY THE COURT (Oral)

¶50

These four appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act of 1988’), are arising out of the same accident and decided by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’), by a common judgment & award dated 8^th of May, 2018, therefore, all of them are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶51

The facts, in brief, are that on 11^th of December, 2016 deceased Lalapuri, Dinesh, Bhagupuri, Khiya and Ravi were traveling in Vehicle No.RJ-14-CD-8037 from Pipar to their village Gachhipura and when their vehicle reached near Dangawas at about 5:00 PM, it collided with Corporation bus bearing No.RJ-32PA-2184. It was a head on collision and as per version of the claimants, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation vehicle. It is also averred in the claim petitions that driver of the Corporation vehicle plied the bus on wrong side of the road. Due to accident, Lalaji, Dinesh and Bhagupuri suffered grave and serious injuries and died during treatment. Likewise, one passenger, Mohanlal, travelling in the Corporation Bus, also suffered grave and serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The respective claimants quantified compensation of different denominations in the claim petitions by narrating

¶52

(4 of 8)

¶53

requisite facts about income of the deceased per mensum and their occupations. The respondent-claimants quantified compensation of each case as under:-

¶54

Sr. No.	Claim Case No.	Amountquantified
1.	92/2017	Rs.8,59,440/-
2.	93/2017	Rs.8,59,440/-
3.	94/2017	Rs.8,94,108/-
4.	128/2017	Rs.3,60,877/-

¶55

On behalf of appellant-Corporation, claim petitions were contested and reply to each claim was submitted. In the reply, a specific objection was raised on behalf of the Corporation that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.RJ14-CD-8037 in which deceased Lalapuri, Dinesh, Bhagupuri, Khiya and Ravi were travelling.

¶56

The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of a very significant fact that all the claims are edificed on one accident, consolidated all the four cases. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled following four issues for determination:-

¶57

^^1vk;k fnukad 11-12-2016 dks “kke 05 cts esM+rk vtesj jksM+ ij tSrkj.k&C;koj ckbZikl ds ikl vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 us vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 o 3 ds fu;sktu o funsZ”ku esa] okgu jksMost cl uacj vkj ts 32 ih , 2184 dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pyk dj] okgu dkj uacj vkj ts 14 lh Mh 8037 dks VDdj ekjh] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i mDr dkj esa lokj fnus”k iq= usehpUn] ykyiqjh mQZ ykykiqjh iq= xksfoUniqjh] Hkkxqijh iq= xksfoUniqjh ,oa eksguyky iq= ?khlkjke ds izk.k?kkrd pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ] ftuls mudh e`R;q gks xbZ \

¶58

& izkFkhZx.k

¶59

2- D;k vizkFkhZ laŒ 2 o 3 dh vksj ls tokc esa vafdr vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij os {kfriwfrZ ds nkf;Ro ls eqDr gksus ;ksX; gSa \

¶60

& vizkFkhZ la- 2 o 3

¶61

3- D;k izkFkhZx.k Hkaojh oxSjk] jk/kk] [kha;knsoh oxSjk ,oa flatkjh viuh&viuh DySe ;kfpdkvksa esa vafdr {kfriwfrZ jkf”k Øe”k% 2]68]70]000@& :i;s] 2]46]70]000@& :i;s] 1]71]50]000@& :i;s rFkk

¶62

(5 of 8)

¶63

15]90]220@& :i;s] vizkFkhZx.k ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa \ ;fn gkW rks fdruh vkSj fdlls \

¶64

4- vuqrks"k **

¶65

On behalf of claimants, five witnesses appeared to prove the case of respective claimants. Besides that, 91 documents were produced, which were exhibited. In defence, on behalf of Corporation, only one witness NAW-1 Kan Singh was examined and besides his oral testimony, no other oral or documentary evidence was tendered.

¶66

The learned Tribunal, thereafter, heard final arguments and by the impugned judgment and award partly allowed all the four claims.

¶67

The learned Tribunal, while examining Issue No.1, meticulously examined the evidence and other materials on record threadbare for recording an affirmative finding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation vehicle. For arriving at this conclusion, the learned Tribunal has also relied on the site plan prepared by police, besides other oral and documentary evidence. While adverting to Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal recorded a definite finding that in view of conclusion on Issue No.1, the same merits decision against the appellant Corporation. Switching on Issue No.3, which was a crucial issue for determining quantum of compensation payable to respective claimants, the learned Tribunal discussed the monthly income of individual deceased besides his occupation. Finally, the learned Tribunal, by construing monthly income of the individual

¶68

(6 of 8)

¶69

deceased moderately, made necessary deduction for personal expenses and applied requisite multiplier for assessing compensation for loss of dependency. Apart from determining loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal, while considering Claim Nos.92/2017, 93/2017 and 94/2017, added 40% amount as compensation for future prospects in the backdrop of the fact that all the deceased/victims were self-employed.

¶70

In Claim Case No.128/2017, considering the age of the deceased as 77 years, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,60,877/-. The learned Tribunal, while adjudicating claim petition No.128/2017, applied different yardstick in the backdrop of age of the deceased and the fact that he was a retired Govt. employee. The amount of compensation quantified and awarded by the learned Tribunal in individual case is as follows:-

¶71

Sr.	Claim Case No.	Amountquantified
1.	92/2017	Rs.8,59,440/-
2.	93/2017	Rs.8,59,440/-
3.	94/2017	Rs.8,94,108/-
4.	128/2017	Rs.3,60,877/-

¶72

While making assessment of the compensation, learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and the requisite deduction was also made for personal expenses as per the said verdict by taking into account the marital status of the individuals and their dependents.

¶73

(7 of 8)

¶74

With a view to consider future prospects, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on a recent judgment of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680].

¶75

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Corporation as well as learned counsel for the respondent-claimants and perused the impugned award.

¶76

Upon consideration of findings of learned Tribunal on each issue, more particularly, findings on Issue Nos.1 & 3, in my view, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error much less manifest error of law and fact. Findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding issue No.1 is based on sound reasonings & appreciation of evidence, therefore, the same cannot be faulted requiring judicial review in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The learned Tribunal, while quantifying the amount of compensation, has assessed the monthly income of deceased persons moderately as three of them were self-employed persons. Likewise, the learned Tribunal has also added 40% for future prospects by following the dictum of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). That apart, learned Tribunal has also made sincere endeavour to apply the requisite multiplier in the backdrop of age of the individual deceased. In overall fact scenario the learned Tribunal has exercised its discretion by relying on reasonable principle and amount of compensation is ascertained for cogent and valid reasons. Therefore, finding on issue No.3 warrants no interference.

¶77

(8 of 8)

¶78

Human life is very precious and no amount of compensation can be adequate to provide solace to the bereaved family. Grant of compensation in the event of death of an individual in road accident is essentially founded on the doctrine of vicarious liability and the Legislature, in its wisdom, has provided for assessment of just and fair compensation under Section 168 of the Act. As the very edifice of the claims for compensation under the Act is doctrine of vicarious liability, which emanates from law of torts, the endeavour of Court should be to award reasonable compensation in the form of unliquidated damages.

¶79

As the learned Tribunal has evaluated all the materials available on record for quantifying award of compensation in these matters individually with pragmatic approach, satisfying the criteria of just compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of the Act, I feel dissuaded to interfere with the impugned award.

¶80

Resultantly, all these appeals fail and are, hereby, dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in each file.

¶81

a.asopa/-

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sinjari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sinjari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daluram Vs Abdul Wahid and Ors.

Hindu Undivided Firm Prabhuram Devaram Vs Hindu Undivided Family Firm Gangavishan Hanuman Prasad

Jalam Vs Gram Panchyat, Barodiya and Ors.

Mishri Lal Vs Safi Mohd. and Anr.

Lrs of Asha Rani Vs Sarswati Devi

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Radha