Partly allowed

General Manager v. Maili @ Mahilee

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2024CMA/450/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed transport corporation appeals challenging negligence findings but allowed an enhancement of consortium compensation for deceased dependents. The appeal by an injured claimant regarding inadequate quantum was dismissed as the awarded amount was upheld.

What did the court decide?

211/2021 partly allowed by augmenting consortium heads to ₹40,000 each; 450/2020 and 467/2020 dismissed; 220/2021 dismissed.

General Manager Vs Maili @ Mahilee — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:5691]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 467/2020

¶4

General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Head Office Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Pratapgarh Depot, District Pratapgarh (Raj.) (Bus Owner)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Devendra S/o Vasiya Meena, B/c Meena, R/o Ugamanapara, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶9

Premshankar S/o Shri Goutam Dholi, B/c Dholi, R/o Pipilkhunt, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Raj.) (Driver)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

¶12

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 450/2020

¶13

General Manager, Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation Head Office Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶14

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Pratapgarh Depot, District Pratapgarh (Raj.) (Bus Owner)

¶15

----Appellants

¶16

Versus

¶17

Maili @ Mahilee W/o Veerji, D/o Khatiya @ Khitaya, B/c Meena, R/o Ugamanapara, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶18

Galiya S/o Veerji, B/c Meena, R/o Ugamanapara, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶19

Mangana S/o Veerji, B/c Meena, R/o Ugamanapara, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶20

Premshankar S/o Shri Goutam Dhali, B/c Dholi, R/o Pipilkhunt, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Raj.) (Driver)

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

and

¶23

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 211/2021

¶24

Mayli @ Mahili W/o Veerji, Aged About 50 Years, D/o Khatiya @ Khitiya Meena, R/o Ugmanapada, Tehsil Pipalkhut, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶25

Galiya D/o Veerji Meena, Aged About 31 Years,

¶26

(2 of 6) [CMA-467/2020]

¶27

[2024:RJ-JD:5691]

¶28

Ugmanapada, Tehsil Pipalkhut, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶29

1. Mangana D/o Veerji Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Ugmanapada, Tehsil Pipalkhut, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶30

----Appellants

¶31

Versus

¶32

Prem Shankar S/o Gautam Dholi, Pipalkhut, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶33

Rajasthan Path Parivahan Nigam Pratapgarh Agar, Chief Manager, Rajasthan Path Parivahan Nigam Pratapgarh Agar,pratapgarh

¶34

Rajasthan Rajya Path Parivahan Nigam, General Manager, Head Office Parivahan Marg, Chomu House Jaipur

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

Connected With

¶37

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 220/2021

¶38

Devendra S/o Vasiya Meena, Aged About 31 Years, Ugmanapada, Tehsil Pipalkhut, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶39

----Appellant

¶40

Versus

¶41

1. Prem Shankar S/o Gautam Dholi, Pipalkhut, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶42

1. Chief Manager, Rajasthan Path Parivahan Nigam Pratapgarh Agar, Dis. Pratapgarh

¶43

1. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Path Parivahan Nagim, Head Office Parivahan Marg Chomu House, Jaipur

¶44

----Respondents

¶45

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Loon Karan Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Ravi Panwar

¶46

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶47

05/02/2024

¶48

The present appeals arise out of the same judgment/award dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶49

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.211/2021 has been preferred by the claimants in MAC No.257/2017 (132/2015) for enhancement

[2024:RJ-JD:5691]

[CMA-467/2020]

(3 of 6)

of the compensation amount as awarded by the impugned judgment/award whereby the claim of Rs.9,08,592/- was awarded in their favour qua the death of the deceased Badiya whereas S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.450/2020 has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) in the same claim case with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment/award.

¶54

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.220/2021 has been preferred in MAC No.250/2017 (120/2015) by claimant Devendra, who was injured in the accident, for enhancement of the claim of Rs.1,25,884/- as awarded in his favour whereas S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No 467/2020 has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) in the said claim case with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment/award.

¶55

Vide order dated 25.01.2024, the stay applications preferred in both the appeals filed by the RSRTC were rejected by this Court.

¶56

Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that on the road where the accident occurred, some grit and stones were lying and hence, it cannot be concluded that the complete negligence was on the part of the bus driver only. He further submits that the deceased Badiya was also negligent and hence, it was a case of contributory negligence.

¶57

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that there is not an iota of evidence available on record to prove any negligence on part of the deceased. On quantum, counsel submitted that the computation of income of the deceased

[2024:RJ-JD:5691]

[CMA-467/2020]

(4 of 6)

by the learned Tribunal on basis of the minimum wages of Rs.197/- per day is erroneous as it was clearly proved on record that the deceased was working as a driver. Further, the minimum wages, even if to be considered, ought to have been considered that of a ‘skilled labour’. He further submits that the amount qua ‘consortium’ has not been awarded as per the ratio laid down in

¶62

The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Somwati,

¶63

(2020) 9 SCC 644 and hence, the said amount also deserves to be enhanced.

¶64

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment/award as well as the material available on record.

¶65

A bare perusal and analysis of the site report (Exhibit-11), FIR (Exhibit-3) and the challan (Exhibit-1) makes it clear that the motorcycle was hit from back by the bus. It is not the case of the appellant that sudden brake was applied by the motorcycle driver or that he was driving on the wrong side of the road. The most natural assumption/conclusion in a case where the vehicle is hit from back, is that, the driver of the vehicle hitting from back is/was negligent. Further, there is no evidence to the contrary, available on record, to hold/conclude the opposite. Therefore, the ground as raised by counsel for the RSRTC does not hold any water. Consequently, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 450/2020 & 467/2020 preferred by the RSRTC are hereby dismissed.

¶66

Coming on to the quantum of compensation in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.211/2021, the present one is an admitted case wherein no proof regarding the income of the deceased Badiya had been placed on record. AW-2 Smt. Mayli @ Mahili, mother of

[2024:RJ-JD:5691]

[CMA-467/2020]

(5 of 6)

the deceased, specifically admitted that no documents qua the income and the age of the deceased have been placed on record.

¶71

In view of the said fact, this Court is of the opinion that the income as considered by the learned Tribunal on basis of the minimum wages of an unskilled labour does not deserve any interference. There being no evidence available on record regarding the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal could not have considered anything other than what has been considered.

¶72

So far as the award qua the head of ‘consortium’ is concerned, it is evident that no amount qua the said head has been granted by the learned Tribunal. 10. In view of the same, in keeping with the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Somwati (supra), all the three claimants would be entitled for a grant of Rs.40,000/- each qua the head of ‘consortium’. Hence, the judgment/award impugned dated 05.03.2019 deserves to be and is hereby modified to the extent that all the three claimants would be entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each qua the head of 'consortium'. The said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The enhanced amount be deposited by the appellant Corporation with the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from now failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum. The amount when deposited, be disbursed to the claimants in their saving account [in equal proportion].

[2024:RJ-JD:5691]

[CMA-467/2020]

(6 of 6)

In view of the above, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal

¶77

No.211/2021 stands partly allowed.

¶78

So far as the amount of compensation of Rs.1,25,884 as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant Devendra is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the same has rightly been awarded and the same does not deserve any interference or enhancement. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.220/2021 hence, stands dismissed .

¶79

The records of the learned Tribunal, if received by the office, be sent back forthwith to the learned Tribunal. 13. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶80

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶81

1,11,12-13-KashishS/-

General Manager v. Maili @ Mahilee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager v. Maili @ Mahilee

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

Smt.Varsha Vs Laxmi Narain and Ors.

Iqbal Mohammad Vs Khemraj

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jatin Soni and Ors.

General Manager Vs Devendra

Devendra Vs Prem Shankar

Mayli @ Mahili Vs Prem Shankar