Dismissed

R S R T C Head Office v. Smt Meena and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2018CMA/5636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil appeal challenged compensation awarded to an injured motorcyclist for a motor vehicle accident. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding on negligent driving and held that the assessed compensation did not require reduction, despite the Tribunal omitting future prospects in the calculation. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal order dated 25.04.2016 was upheld.

R S R T C Head Office Vs Smt Meena and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5636/2016

¶4

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.), Head Office Jaipur Branch Office Jhalawar Through Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Depot Jhalawar, Distt. Jhalawar.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Meena W/o Shri Motilal, Aged About 28 Years, Chandkheri, Khanpur, Tehsil Khanpur, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶8

Ranjeet Singh Devda S/o Shri Bhupendra Singh, B/c Rajput, Jawahar Colony, Jhalawar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Tabassum Joad Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

05/04/2018

¶14

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, whereby, Rs.1,85,500/- was granted by way of compensation to respondent No.1 on account of injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicle accident.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petition filed by respondent No.1. In-fact, the claimant had failed to establish that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 while driving the offending bus. Compensation has also been granted by the Tribunal on a higher side.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CMA-5636/2016]

¶18

Respondent No.1 had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 17.10.2012. Case of the claimant was that on the day of occurrence, she was travelling on the Motorcycle driven by her husband Moti Lal. When they had reached near Gram Chunabhati Road, a bus bearing No. RJ 14-1P-5061 came from Khanpur side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and the said bus struck against their motorcycle. As a result, respondent No.1 and her husband Moti Lal suffered injuries, whereas, Bhanwari Bai mother of Moti Lal died.

¶19

In order to establish issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal to the effect that as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 while driving the offending bus, respondent No.1 as well as her husband Moti Lal had appeared in the witness box and deposed as per their case. Appellant had not examined any witness to rebut the statements of Moti Lal and Meena Bai (respondent No.1). Tribunal after perusing the site plan and statements of witnesses came to the conclusion that it was established on record that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 while driving the offending bus. There is nothing on record to take a contrary view. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is liable to be upheld.

¶20

The next question that requires consideration is as to whether the amount of compensation calculated by the Tribunal has been rightly calculated. Claimant/respondent No.2 was aged about 29 years at the time of accident. As per disability certificate Exhibit-92,

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CMA-5636/2016]

¶23

claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10%. Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.5,122/- per month basing reliance on minimum wages fixed by the State. However, accident in the present case had occurred on 17.10.2012. At the relevant time, minimum wages fixed by the State was Rs. 3,822/- per month. Hence, the claimant was entitled to receive Rs. 3822 X 12 X 17 X 10% = Rs.77,928/- vis-à-vis her permanent disability, by way of compensation. Claimant was further entitled to receive 40% of the said amount towards her future prospects and the said amount comes to Rs. 31,171/-. Thus, the total amount vis-à-vis disability suffered by the claimant comes to Rs. 77,928/+ Rs. 31,171/- = Rs. 1,09,099/-. Tribunal has allowed Rs.1,04,488.80 P as compensation towards 10% disability suffered by the claimant. Tribunal had not granted compensation towards future prospects of the claimant. In the remaining heads, the Tribunal has righlty calculated compensation liable to be paid to the claimant.

¶24

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require to be reduced, though, for different reasons.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

(SABINA),J

¶27

S.Kumawat/D-12

R S R T C Head Office v. Smt Meena and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S R T C Head Office v. Smt Meena and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Santosh Devi and Othrs

Mohammad Ali Vs Amin Khan

Kailash@Pappu and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Balu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Balu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Balu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P