Dismissed

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bheriya

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2024CMA/1542/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this CMA, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the RTC Corporation and an unskilled labourer against a compensation award. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that there was no contributory negligence and upheld the assessment of the deceased's income based on minimum wages due to lack of proof.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment/award of 20.01.2020 affirmed; appellants to deposit remaining compensation with interest within two months.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:3178]

[CMA-1542/2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1542/2020

¶6

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its General Manager, Rsrtc , Bus Stand, Udaipur, Rajasthan

¶7

Shri Jagdish Chand S/o Shri Narotamlal Sharma, Aged About 1 Years, R/o Bus Stand Dhariyawad, Tehsil Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Bheriya S/o Late Shri Dhuliya Damor, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Bhodan Ka Vela, Falla Kharod, Gram Panchayat Munged, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur

¶11

Smt. Kesu W/o Shri Bheriya Damor, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Bhodan Ka Vela, Falla Kharod, Gram Panchayat Munged, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopal Raj Kalla For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Mankad

¶14

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶15

Order

¶16

19/01/2024

¶17

The present appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred by nonclaimants–appellants against the judgment/award dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.414/2018 whereby the claim petition as preferred by the claimants-respondents under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been partly allowed and an award for an amount of Rs.7,74,304/- with interest @7% per

¶18

(2 of 5) [CMA-1542/2020]

¶19

[2024:RJ-JD:3178]

¶20

annum from the date of application has been passed in favour of the claimants.

¶21

The case of the claimants (father and mother of deceased Mohanlal) is that their son used to sell domestic utensils on hand drawn cart. On 13.01.2018, Mohanlal, while going towards Varai Mata temple from his house, was standing on the roadside when a bus of appellant No.1-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bearing registration No.RJ43-PA-0072 driven by appellant No.2, rashly and negligently, came from Sabala side and hit him, as a result of which, he fell on the road and succumbed to the injuries. 3. The learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,538/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,74,304/with interest @7% per annum in favour of the claimantsrespondents.

¶22

The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant corporation on two grounds, firstly, that the learned Tribunal totally ignored the evidence as led by the appellants qua the contributory negligence of the deceased. Secondly, the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,538/- per month, that of an unskilled labour, without there being any evidence available on record qua the said fact.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings as arrived to by the learned Tribunal.

¶24

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

[CMA-1542/2020]

[2024:RJ-JD:3178]

(3 of 5)

The points that emerge for determination before this Court

¶29

are:

¶30

1. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the deceased in causing the motor vehicle accident?

¶31

1. Whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased for computation of compensation?

¶32

Regarding the 1st point, the defendants had pleaded that the accident occurred as a result of the act of deceased himself hence, he was equally negligent. However, the only evidence led by defendants was in the form of NAD-1, the driver of the bus who stated in his evidence that the deceased ran in front of the bus and as a result of his own action, was hit by the bus and therefore, he himself contributed to the accident. But, the said statement is totally contrary to the site report Exhibit-4 as per which the accident was caused due to the mistake and negligence of the driver of the bus. Further, the tribunal observed that had it been the case that there was no fault or negligence of the driver and if he was wrongly accused, then he would have preferred complaint or initiated proceedings regarding the same however, he denied having taken any such action.

¶33

In the opinion of this Court, when any party wants the Court to believe that there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim, it must prove the same by adducing cogent evidence. A perusal of the evidence as led, makes it clear that no independent/reliable evidence regarding any contributory negligence of the deceased was led by the appellant corporation. A mere cursory plea regarding the negligence of the deceased has

¶34

[2024:RJ-JD:3178]

¶35

(4 of 5) [CMA-1542/2020]

¶36

been taken but no evidence to substantiate the said averment has been led. The sole evidence of the driver, against whom the challan had been filed, being himself the accused, cannot be of much relevance.

¶37

In the overall analysis of facts of the present case, this Court is of the specific opinion that the learned Tribunal rightly reached to the finding that the defendants have failed to prove any contributory negligence on part of the deceased and the same is therefore, affirmed.

¶38

So far as the 2^nd point regarding computation of the income for calculating the quantum of compensation is concerned, reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s observation in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others; (2018) 18 SCC 130 would be of relevance, wherein it was held as under:

¶39

“ 8.3. With respect to the income of the deceased, as the family could not produce any evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month, as claimed, the High Court took his income to be Rs.6000/-, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs.5342. This finding is also not being interfered with .”

¶40

In the case of Manusha Sreekumar and Ors. vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; AIR 2022 SC 5161 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶41

“19……This Court in Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 198, has aptly held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased.”

¶42

In the present case, it was pleaded by the claimants that the

¶43

income of the deceased was Rs.18,000/- per month through sale

[CMA-1542/2020]

[2024:RJ-JD:3178]

(5 of 5)

of grocery on his hand drawn cart whereas AD-1- father of deceased, in his evidence, stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.600-700 per day from sale of plastic items on his hand drawn cart however, no evidence qua his income was placed on record. Meaning thereby, although no specific income of the deceased was proved but the factum of his earning his livelihood by selling on a hand drawn cart was definitely proved. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income of deceased on basis of the minimum wages of an unskilled labour in the year 2018 that is Rs.5,538/- per month (Rs.66,456/- per annum). In view of the ratio reiterated in Manusha Sreekumar’s case (supra), the finding of the learned Tribunal does not deserve to be interfered with and the same is hereby, affirmed.

¶48

In view of the above analysis, the present appeal is hereby dismissed and the judgment/award dated 20.01.2020 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur is hereby, affirmed. The appellants shall deposit the remaining amount of the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, with interest, within two (2) months from receipt of copy of the present order, if not already deposited.

¶49

The stay application as well as all the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶50

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶51

112-SPhophaliya/-

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bheriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bheriya

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

Anil Vs Ali Mohd. and Anr.

Hajari Lal Vs Govind Prasad

Ranjeet Singh Vs Tata Aig General Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Anita Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Poonaram Vs Cholamandalam Ms Genral Ins. Co. Ltd.

Smt. Usha and Ors. Vs Ghansyam Deora and Ors.