Dismissed

R S R T C Thr Managing Dir v. Okendra Sharma and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CMA/3694/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and an injured retired government servant challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held the Tribunal decisions regarding liability, disability compensation, and attendant care were correct.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed.

R S R T C Thr Managing Dir Vs Okendra Sharma and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6465]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3694/2017

¶4

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director, Office Praivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur Through Its Officer Incharge

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Okendra Sharma S/o Sanwal Singh, Opposite Panchayat Samiti Kaman, Teh. Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur Raj.

¶8

Sodan Singh S/o Ramhet, Village Jonai, Police Station Saiya, Distt. Agra, Uttarpradesh And Driver Lohagarh Depot, Bharatpur Driver Of Bus No. Rj-05-Pa-481

¶9

Banwarilal S/o Narayan Jagara, Village Papadda, Teh. And Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-G1283

¶10

Hari Prasad Sharma S/o Ramsahai, Village Bhandana, Teh. And Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶11

4A. Smt. Manbhari W/o Hari Prasad Sharma, Village Bhandana, Teh. And Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶12

4B. Deendayal S/o Hari Prasad, Village Bhandana, Teh. And Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶13

4C. Shivdayal S/o Hariprasad, Village Bhandana, Teh. And Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶14

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager, Office Opposite Hdfc Bank, Near Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Rj29-G-1283

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4681/2017

¶18

Okendra Sharma S/o Sanwal Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o Opposite Panchayat Samiti Kaman, Teh. Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur Raj.

¶19

----Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

Sodan Singh S/o Ramhet, Village Jonai, Police Station Saiya, Distt. Agra, Uttarpradesh And Driver Lohagarh Depot, Bharatpur

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:6465]

[CMA-3694/2017]

Driver Of Bus No. Rj-05-Pa-481

¶26

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director, Office Praivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Owner-Bus No.RJ 05 PA 481)

¶27

Banwarilal S/o Narayan Jagara, Village Papadda, Teh. And Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-G-1283

¶28

Hari Prasad Sharma S/o Ramsahai, Village Bhandana, Teh. And Distt. Dausa Raj.

¶29

4A. Smt. Manbhari W/o Hari Prasad Sharma, aged 43 Years

¶30

4B.Deendayal S/o Hari Prasad aged 24 Years

¶31

4C. Shivdayal S/o Hariprasad aged 22 years

¶32

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager, Office Opposite Hdfc Bank, Near Ahinsa Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-G-1283

¶33

----Respondent

¶34

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel, Adv. (RSRTC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Khandal, Adv. (Claimant) Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. with Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. for Insurance Company

¶35

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶36

Judgment

¶37

DATE OF JUDGMENT 08/02/2024

¶38

The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Essential Commodity Act, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.621/2015, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.4,67,700/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant (for short ‘the claimant”).

(3 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:6465]

[CMA-3694/2017]

CMA No.3694/2017 has been filed by the appellant-RSRTC (for short ‘the RSRTC’) challenging the judgment & award dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds, whereas CMA No.4681/2017 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶43

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3694/2017 -Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the tribunal wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant vide judgment dated 22.05.2017. The tribunal had not decided issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 in right perspective. As per evidence of respondent No.2-Sodan Singh (driver of RSRTC bus), truck was parked on the middle of the road and there were no indicators around it. The accident occurred at 3:00 AM, so, there was no occasion for the driver of the bus to avoid the accident. So, RSRTC be exonerated from its liability and liability be fastened on the Insurance Company of the truck in question. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that evidence of Sodan Singh was not controverted by the claimant. No eye witness was examined by the claimant to support his case. So, judgment of the tribunal be set aside. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the tribunal wrongly awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,35,000/- under the head of disability. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that injured claimant is a retired Government Servant and he is getting pension. So, there was no loss of income to him. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the tribunal also wrongly allowed Rs.40,000/- for nutritional diet. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that

[2024:RJ-JP:6465]

[CMA-3694/2017]

(4 of 5)

the tribunal wrongly allowed Rs.25,000/- for an attendant because no evidence was led by the claimant regarding expenses incurred of the attendant. So, judgment of the tribunal be set aside.

¶48

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4681/2017 - Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the tribunal meagerly awarded Rs.1,35,000/- for disability of the claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that due to injury, claimant was permanent disabled, which tantamounts to paralysis. He is fully dependent upon others for his daily routine work. Claimant had submitted his photos in order to establish his case. So, disability of the claimant be considered as 100% in relation to the nature of injuries sustained by him. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the attendant charges. Claimant will be dependent on others till remaining part of life. So, amount awarded by the tribunal be enhanced.

¶49

Learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon & Anr. reported in (2022) 8 SCC 489 .

¶50

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal.

¶51

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the RSRTC, learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶52

The tribunal while deciding the claim petition clearly mentioned that truck was parked on the middle of the road. Due

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:6465]

[CMA-3694/2017]

to negligence of the bus driver, the accident occurred. So, in my considered opinion, the tribunal had not committed any error in deciding the issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 against the RSRTC.

¶57

The tribunal had considered the disability certificate exhibited by claimant in which disability of the claimant was mentioned as 45%. Contention of the claimant that claimant was permanently disabled and it tantamounts to paralysis and he is dependent on othert claimant has been paralyzed. Judgment relied by the claimant is not applicable in this appeal because in the said upon case, the claimant was an IAS aspirant and later on due to 100% disability in a road accident, he had to choose profession of Advocate, whereas in the instant case, the claimant is a retired Government Servant. So, in my considered opinion, the tribunal had not committed any error in awarding Rs.1,35,000/- towards the disability of the claimant. The tribunal rightly awarded Rs.40,000/- for nutritional diet food and Rs.25,000/- for an attendant. So, in my considered opinion, both the appeals filed by RSRTC and claimant being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.

¶58

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.

¶59

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶60

Jatin /656-657

R S R T C Thr Managing Dir v. Okendra Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S R T C Thr Managing Dir v. Okendra Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram @ Bhamu S/O Shri Ugrasen Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Jagannath Gupta Vs Mohan Lal Lathar Director General of Police

Ramjas S/O Shri Bhorelal @ Bhanwar Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh S/O Rajan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramniwas S/O Hanuman Prasad Vs Ajit Singh S/O Sukhdev Singh

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hanseera and Ors.