Dismissed

Raj State Road Transport Corporation through General Manager v. Smt Rekha Devi W/O Late Sh. Rameshchand

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2018CMA/3239/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation. The Court held that the Tribunal's observation that the bus was involved in the accident was reasonable and the appeal lacked merits.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous appeal was dismissed in limine based on lack of merit.

Raj State Road Transport Corporation… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3239/2018

¶3

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶4

(Registered owner Roadways Bus No. RJ-01-PA-0278)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Late Sh. Rameshchand, aged 26 years

¶8

Manish S/o Late Sh. Rameshchand, Aged About 5 Years,

¶9

Hanuman Sahay S/o Anandilal, Aged About 52 Years,

¶10

Smt. Premdevi W/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 50 Years,

¶11

Mukesh S/o Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 22 Years,

¶12

Kumari Kanchan D/o Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 20 Years,

¶13

By caste Maali, Resident of Village Chatarpura, Maliyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. (Respondent No.2, minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Rekha Devi).

¶14

----Respondents/Claimants

¶15

Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Kundanmal Tank, aged 37 years, by caste Maali, Resident of Choti Basti Naala, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, District Ajmer.

¶16

(Driver Roadways Bus No. RJ-01-PA-0278)

¶17

----Respondent/ Non-claimant No.1

¶18

For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur For Respondent(s) : None present

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

Order

(2 of 6)

[CMA-3239/2018]

11/10/2018

Appellant- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has preferred this misc. appeal against the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4) Jaipur, District Jaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 330/2013 (397/2007) (Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. vs. Manoj Kumar And Ors.) whereby learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of respondents-claimants filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act and awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 7,50,400/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 09.03.2007.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that respondents-claimants filed a claim petition before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Sections 140 & 166 of the M.V. Act, in which it was pleaded that on 12.02.2007 when deceased-Ramesh Chand was going on motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-SM-5813 alongwith one Ramavtar at about 7:45 p.m. from Bhankrota to Chatarpura, driver of Bus No. RJ-01-PA-0278 belonging to appellant after driving the bus in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle, due to which Ramesh Chand sustained serious injuries resulted into his death. It was pleaded that FIR was lodged regarding this accident at Police Station Bagru, in which after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against respondent No.- 7 Manoj Kumar. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident deceased- Ramesh Chand was of 24 years old and his monthly income was Rs. 7,000/- per month.

¶26

Learned tribunal after issuing notices to non- claimants and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, partly allowed the claim petition in aforesaid manner.

¶27

(3 of 6)

¶28

[CMA-3239/2018]

¶29

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, appellantRajasthan State Road Transport Corporation preferred this misc. appeal before this Court.

¶30

Mr. V.P. Mathur learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that in this matter FIR was lodged after 8 days and the bus was not involved in the accident. Without considering all these facts learned tribunal wrongly allowed the claim petition, therefore this misc. appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶32

Learned tribunal framed issue No.- 1 in following manner :-

¶33

“vk;k iz’uxr okgu jksM+ost cl la[;k vkjts&01&ih,&0278 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 1 ds }kjk fnukad 12&02&2017 dks lka; 7-45 ih0,e ij okgu dks mis{kk ,oa mrkoysiu ls pykdj dh xbZ] nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVksa ds ifj.kkeLo:i jes’kpUnz iq= guqeku lgk; dh e`R;q gqbZ\”

¶34

While deciding the aforesaid issue, learned tribunal observed that :-

¶35

okgu jksMost cl uacj vkjts&01&ih,&0278 }kjk dkfjr dh xbZ gSA ysfdu jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe dh vksj ls rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd ;g cl 7-45 ih0,e0 ij fla/kh dSEi cl LVs.M ij [kM+h Fkh] vr% ?kVuk Lfky ij ekStwn ugha gks ldrh gS] blls nq?kZVuk dkfjr ugha gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls izR;{kn’khZ xokg jkefd’kksj ,0M02 us Li"V :i ls jes’k dh eksVj lkbZfdy dks iz’uxr okgu jksMost cl uacj vkjts&01&ih,&0278 ds pkyd }kjk rstxfr o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, VDdj ekjuk crk;k gS ,oa ?kVuk dk le; 7-45 ih0,e0 ij egkiqjk jksM+] vtesj jksM+ gksuk crk;k gSA jktLFkku fuxe }kjk

¶36

(4 of 6)

¶37

[CMA-3239/2018]

¶38

vius leFkZu esa ykWXk 'khV esa ek= okgu dk uacj 278 vafdr gS] tcfd jksM+ostcl dk iwjk uacj vkjts&01&ih, &0278 gSA blds vfrfjDR ykWXk 'khV ij ftl O;fDr ds gLrk{kj gS] mls ijhf{kr ugha djk;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr tgka jktLFkku jksM+ost ds fo:) ;g Dyse ;kfpdk is’k dh xbZ gS rks Lo;a ds foHkkx ds O;fDr dks cpkus ds fy, jksMOkst }kjk ;g nLrkost vklkuh ls rS;kj fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl nLrkost esa Mhty [kir ds Lfkku ij yky L;kgh ls Øksl vafdr fd;k gqvk gS] ;g Hkh vlaHko izrhr gksrk gS fd Mhty [kir 'kwU; gksA bl laca/k esa dksbZ tkudkjh D;ksa ugha nh xbZ] uk gh iz’uxr okgu dk uacj vafdr gS] ek= 278 fy[kk gqvk gS ,oa Lo;a iz’uxr okgu ds pkyd eukst ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ xokg ijhf{kr ugha djk;k x;k gS fd iz’uxr okgu jksMost cl uacj vkjts&01&ih,&0278 ?kVuk ds le; nq?kZVuk Lfky ij uk gksdj fla/kh dSEi cl LVs.M+ ij [kM+h gksA tcfd izkFkhZx.k dh vkSj ls izR;{kn’khZ xokg ,0M02 jkefd’kksj dks ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gS] ftlus ftjg esa ikSus vkB cts dh ?kVuk crkrs gq,okgu uacj ftjg esa Hkh vkjts&01&ih,&0278 nksgjk;k gSA blds vfrfjDr nq?kZVuk dkfjr gksus ds ckn 10&20 fefuV dk QdZ le; esa vkuk bruk egRo ugha j[krk gS fd blh vk/kkj ij Dyse ;kfpdk dks lansg dh n`f"V ls ns[kk tk,A

¶39

tgka rd jktLFkku jksMost dh vkSj ls ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 esa nsjh ds laca/k esa vkifRRk dh xbZ gS rks rgjhjh ,Q0vkbZ0vkj izn’kZ 1 esa nsjh dk dkj.k Li"V :i ls ,Q0vkbZ0vkjdrkZ jktsUnz dqekj us vafdr fd;k gS fd brus fnu mlds HkkbZ ds fØ;kdeZ o gfj}kj igqapkus ds dk;Z esa O;Lr gksus ds dkj.k fjiksVZ ntZ ugha djk ldsA fdlh toku O;fDr dh e`R;q gksus ij ,oa ?kj esa mldh iRuh o vlgk; ekrk&firk ds gksus ij ;fn dqN foyEc ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ djkus esa gks tkrk gS rks og egRo ugha j[krk gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk jfo cuke cnzhukjk;.k o vU;] ¼2011½ 4 lqizhe dksVZ

¶40

(5 of 6)

¶41

[CMA-3239/2018]

¶42

dSlst 693 esa LIk"V vfHker O;Dr fd;k gS fd Hkkjrh; ifjfLFkfr;ksa

¶43

esa ,d O;fDr ls ;g vis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh fd og nq?kZVuk ds rqjar ckn iqfyl LVs’ku tk,]ihfM+r O;fDr dk bykt ,Q0vkbZ0vkj ntZ djkus dh rqyuk esa izFke ofj;rk gksrh gS ,oa ek= ,Q-vkbZ-vkj esa nsjh ds vk/kkj ij gh Dyse ;kfpdk ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

¶44

blds vfrfjDr rgjhjh fjiksVZ izn’kZ 1 o pkd ,Q0vkbZ0vkj izn’kZ 02 i=koyh ij ekSTkwn gS ftlesa ?kVuk ds alaca/k esa Li"V dFku gS ,oa ckn vuqla/kku vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 eukst ds fo:) pkyku izn’kZ 3 varxZr /kkjk 279] 304&, Hkk0n0la0 esa is’k gqvk gSA uD’kk ekSdk izn’kZ 8] QnZ tCrh iz’uxr okgu jksMost cl uacj vkjts&01&ih,&0278 izn’kZ 9] esdsfudy eqvk;uk fjiksVZ izn’kZ 10 Ik=koyh ij ekStwn gSA uksfVl /kkjk 133 ,e0oh0,DV izn’kZ 20 esa lgk;d vkxkj izca/kd lh0ch0,l0 fla/kh dSEi] t;iqj us fnukad 12-07-2007 dks iz’uxr okgu ij pkyd eukst dks gksuk crk;k gS] ftldk Mh0,y0 izn’kZ 13 i=koyh ij gSA erd jes’k dh iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn’kZ 7 esa lM+d nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVks la eR;q gksuk vafdr gSA bl izdkj i=koyh ij ekSTkwn ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls Lik"V gS fd iz’kuxr okgu jksMost cl uacj vkjts&01&ih,&0278 dks mlds pkyd }kjk rstxfr o ykijokghiwoZd pykdj mDr nq?kZVuk ?kfVr dh xbZ gS ,oa oDRk nq?kZVuk iz’uxr okgu ij pkyd eukst vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 Fkk] mlds }kjk gh mDr nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ gS ftlesa jes’kpanz dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ gSA

¶45

mijksDr foospukuqlkj i=koyh ij miyC/k ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ds voyksdu ls izkFkhZx.k fook|d la[;k 1 dks izekf.kr ds i{k esa ,oa foi{khx.k ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA”

¶46

From the perusal of aforesaid observation of learned tribunal, it cannot be said that the bus in question was not involved in the accident and this Court is also in full agreement with the observations made by learned tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal

¶47

(6 of 6)

¶48

[CMA-3239/2018]

¶49

devoids merit which is hereby dismissed in limine. Stay application also stands dismissed.

¶50

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶51

S. Kumawat/77

Raj State Road Transport Corporation through General Manager v. Smt Rekha Devi W/O Late Sh. Rameshchand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj State Road Transport Corporation through General Manager v. Smt Rekha Devi W/O Late Sh. Rameshchand

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

M C Saint Pauls Sr Sec School Ajmer Vs Smt Patasi Devi and Others

Alfa Cold Storagealfa Bearing India Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Pradeep Moondra S/O Shri Shanti Swaroop Moondra Vs Suraj Bhan Singh S/O Shri Jalia Ram

Lali Devi Natural Guadian of Vishal Vs Gopal

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Kedar Mal Sharma Vs Smt. Lakha Devi W/O Shri Kameshwar Singh

Mohan Singh Vs Udai Chand and Others