The High Court dismissed compensation claims filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in relying on inconsistent eyewitness testimony and reversed its finding of an accident, setting aside the impugned award.
Impugned award dated 14.12.2016 set aside and claim petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
I. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 522/2017
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Manager, Tonk Depot, Distt. Tonk Having Its Head Office At Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Represented Through Its Officer Incharge
----Non-Claimant/Appellant
Versus
- 3% 3 f&&J <% I. Nandu Kirad T~{ofiod~$,a, {k~~ga.$,,/c Kirad, R/o Vill. %:A h & .t'?jqP ~~~ Bapui, TehsiBonl, Distt. Sawai Ma4UCogt.rr Distt. Sawai Ma4UCogt.rr
Versus
i%&-&: x A 6%%g&F* i2 ----ClaimantsRespondents "<a: A '4 " t: .$ ;.'
',Bd"nwari Lal Bairwa S/o Mool Chand Bairwa, y-&airwa, R/o Vill. Balapura, ~ehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk Raj. Driver Of Bus No.
imant/Respondents
3. S.B. Civil Mi No. 581/2017
Smt. Sunita W/ teek, Village Bapui, Teh. Boli lot No. 170, Maharana Pratap Colony Dis&. i$j$j$aim$&wopur , &jc'ba &*%<.&$ +&$s d$ t 88 W. 5%- Aaditya S/o Khateek Minor And Represented her Being Natural Guardian Smt Village Bapui, Teh. Boli And Pres 170, Maharana Pratap Colony Distt.
%g%.-%*OY w%-k@ Lakshita D/o Late Sitaram B/c Khateek Minor And Represented Through Their other Being Natural Guarian Smt. Sunita W/o Sltaram, Village Bapui, Teh. Boli And Presently R/o Plot No. 170, Maharana Pratap Colony Distt. Sawaimadhopur
Versus
Banwari Lal Bairwa S/o Mool Chand Bairwa B/c Bairwa, Village Balapura, Teh. Uniyara Distt. Tonk Driver Of Vehicle Bus No. Rj26/pa 0042
R.S.R.T.C. Through Manager, Tonk Depot. Distt. Tonk Raj.
----Respondents
Registered Owner Of Vehicle Bus No. Rj 26/pa 0042
For R.S. R.T.C. : Mr. Virendra Agarwal Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Siyaram Sharma Adv,. No.1 and 2 For Respondents : Mr. L. L. Gupta Adv. No.5 to 7 & ors.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
a 3 -.. %. flf''$x Vi s order, above mentioned three appealss would be w
disposed of.
Claimants had filed the two claiCm petitions under Section 166 $g of the Motor Vehicle[&+t 1988, seeking compensation on account .;&;$*. X~ ' ' Y!;; of death of Sita Ram in the motor vehicle accident, which had &! $3 occurred on 28.10.2011?. One claim petition was filed by the widow and children of the deeased, whereas, one claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased. The claim petitions were 9 clubed together and &he Tribunal vide impugned award dated i &; 9fil 14.12.2016 allowed tRe claim petitions. w Hence, two appeals have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, seeking dismissal of tKe claim petitions, whereas, the claimants Sunita and others have filed the appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation al-nount.
Learned counsel for the corporation has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petitions. In-fact, the deceased had died on account of his own negligence. AW-2 Bhagchand had been examined by the claimants as an eyewitness to the accident but the said witness had been introduced
at a later stage by the claimants to seek compensation. The said witness had not witnessed the accident. As per the claimants, deceased was driving motorcycle at the time of accident and Raju Lal Khateek was sitting on pillion seat. However, claimants had failed to examine Raju Lal Khateek as an eye-witness. A perusal of the site plan also shows that the bus was being driven on its correct side of the road, whereas, scooter had come on the wrong side of the road. r""* %&--$ ;; earnedypun:sel for the claimants have &%%@ oppgsed the appeals by L~~ g> filed by th.g;48rporation. $4;~~~ y#tk ,# 7 9 %, ." .,@by
~~ned counsel for claimants Sunita and 6th6~s has submitted that the compensa'tion. amount is liable to be enhanced.
On the pleading,$f the parties, Tribunal had framed Issue **_?'-$hu %t..\FAx._ No.1 to the effect ass' whether Sita Ram had died in an accident, C which had occurred oh 28.1.0,.2Oll due to rash and negligent driving of Banwari Lal Bairwa while driving the offending bus.
B In order to prove Issue ? @ Nd.3; r. elaimants examined AW-2 i Bhagchand. The said witness deposed that on 28.10.2011, while 2;%. f he was returning afte$bnswering & -' th'e call of nature, he saw that a a$& h* tf'' motorcycle was comingT'f@m village ~ahapura side. The Roadways bus came from oppos'ite direction and struck against the motorcycle. As a result, one person, who was sitting on the motorcycle died. In his cross-examination, he deposed that one more person was also sitting on the motorcycle. However, he could not tell if the said person was young, old or a child.
FIR Exhibit-I was lodged by Kailash Chand with regard to the accident in question. A perusal of the same reveals that the motorcycle was being driven by Sita Ram and Raju Lal Khateek was sitting on the pillion seat. Best eye-witness in the present
case can be said to be Raju Lal Khateek, who was travelling with the deceased at the time of accident. However, Raju La1 Khateek has not been examined by the claimants before the Tribunal. The name of Bhagchand is not shown in the list of witnesses as an eye-witness in the criminal case. In the criminal case, Raju Lal Khateek has been shown as an eye-witness. A perusal of the site plan Exhibit-3 reveals that the bus was going on its correct side of the road, whereas the-:motorcycle was coming on the wrong side 3% bS A& a **. ,W w of the road, had $ruck against the bus. & "6 % $fl:s+- d * In tbp$Facts and circumstanc.es of the presenf:xcase, no w. ."s i >x & "h 4.)" reliance &in be placed on the statement of AW-2 hach5hd, who had been examined by the claimants as an eye-witness to the 4.. . accident. The said ,wutness could inot even tell in h'is cross- g>"&;. & ! .%&, examination with rega~d to the age of 'th.e person, who was sitting on the pillion seat. Tf$us, the learned S' Tribunal fell in error in deciding Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is reversed and the said Issue is the claim petitions filed by' the claimants were liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals No.521/2017 and 522/2017 are allowed. Impugned award dated 14.12.2016 is set aside. As a result claim petitions filed by the claimants are dismissed. Consequently, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.581/2017 filed by the claimants is dismissed.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimants failed to examine the pillion rider who could have established the existence of an accident.
Whether the Tribunal erred in relying on the testimony of an eyewitness who could not identify the age of the pillion rider.
Whether the vehicle was driven on the wrong side of the road contrary to the site plan evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Sunita
Banwari Lal Bairwa
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
