Dismissed

Manager Rsrtc v. Hemraj

Rajasthan HC30 Oct 2023CMA/2975/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an s. 173 appeal by RSRTC challenging a motor accident compensation award for a child's death. The court held the child could not be negligent and the award was not too high per Kishan Gopal.

What did the court decide?

The s. 173 appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit; impugned judgment affirmed.

What the court decided

Manager Rsrtc Vs Hemraj — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:31677]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2975/2011

¶4

Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Khetri Depot, District Jhunjhunu.

¶5

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Hemraj S/o Shivram Singh, aged about 38 years.

¶9

Shankutala w/o Hemraj, aged about 36 years.

¶10

Resident of Siradhana, Babai, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. 3. Abdul Gaffar s/o Mustafa Khan, resident of Ward No.5, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mrs.Shruti Dixit For Respondent(s) : Mr.Harsh Dadhich for Mr.SK Singodiya

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order

¶14

30/10/2023

¶15

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation(for short "appellant - RSRTC")non-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 18.02.2010 (for short "the impugned judgment") passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khetri (Raj.) (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.115/2007 (Hemraj & Anr. Vs. Abdul Gaffar & Ors.).

¶16

A claim petition was filed by the respondents - claimants for to claim compensation due to death of their 7 yeas old son - Ravi Kumar (for short "deceased") in a road accident.

[2023:RJ-JP:31677]

[CMA-2975/2011]

(2 of 3)

The learned Tribunal, after considering various aspects of the case, disposed of the claim petition vide the impugned judgment and passed an award of Rs.2,25,000/-.

¶21

Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant - RSRTC has filed the present appeal for quashing of the award.

¶22

The appeal has been filed on the ground that the deceased himself was negligent. The driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed. Therefore, the appellant - RSRTC is not liable for paying any compensation.

¶23

Another ground of the appeal is that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on a very high side, therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be quashed.

¶24

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants confined her arguments on the quantum of compensation.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants submitted that there is no merit in the appeal, hence, the same may be dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

As per the brief facts of the case, the deceased - Ravi Kumar s/o Hemraj was coming from agricultural land to his house and at that time, the driver of the offending vehicle while driving the vehicle at higher speed and in a negligent manner, hit the

[2023:RJ-JP:31677]

[CMA-2975/2011]

(3 of 3)

deceased - Ravi Kumar, causing fatal injuries and later on, the deceased - Ravi Kumar died.

¶32

This Court finds that the deceased was a child of tender age of 5 - 7 years, who cannot be said to be negligent at all. Therefore, the ground taken by learned counsel for the appellant - RSRTC that the deceased himself was negligent is not sustainable.

¶33

The other ground, taken by learned counsel for the appellant - RSRTC is that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on a very high side.

¶34

The Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Ors. Vs. Lala & Ors. [(2014) 1 SCC 244] in the matter of child death has held that notional income of child should be treated Rs.30,000/- per annum and multiplier of 15 is to be applied. If quantum of the compensation is calculated on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Ors. (supra), the amount of award would be much higher than the amount, awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation, awarded by the learned Tribunal, cannot be said to be on higher side.

¶35

On both the grounds, the appeal is devoid of merit, hence, the same is dismissed.

¶36

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶37

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶38

Preeti Asopa / Sudeepak/32

Manager Rsrtc v. Hemraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Manager Rsrtc v. Hemraj

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

The New India Assurnce Co. Ltd. Vs Dori Lal and Ors.

Modh Hanif and Others Vs Sheru and Others

Smt. Suraj Devi Sharma W/O Late Shri Kishanlal Sharma Vs Mahendra Singh Alias M.S. Pal S/O Shri Harsharan Lal @ H.C. Pal Baghel

Usha Devi Vs Mala Ram and Others

Rais and Others Vs Mohd Arsad and Others

Sunita Devi Vs Bhore Lal and Others