Dismissed

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Rameshchandra Shrimali

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2024CMA/524/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 524/2020, RJ High Court (Jodhpur) dismissed an appeal against an MC(ATS) award. Upholding negligence findings based on a site report regarding a one-way street crossing, the court held the award was not excessive even when recalculated under guidelines, despite labeling errors in the motivation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal stands affirmed.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3474]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 524/2020

¶4

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Udaipur Through Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶5

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Central Store, Jhontwara, Jaipur (Raj.) (Bus Owner)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rameshchandra Shrimali S/o Natwarlal, B/c Shrimali Brahmin, R/o 72-E, Chandrshekhar Azad Nagar, Senti Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶9

Abdul Rafik S/o Abdul Karim, B/c Musalman, R/o Nai Aabadi Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.) (Driver)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Order

¶14

23/01/2024

¶15

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Family Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chittorgarh in Case No.2/2018 (978/2011) whereby award for an amount of Rs.7,62,360/alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition has been passed in favour of the claimant.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants raised three grounds before this Court; firstly , the learned Tribunal totally ignored the ground as raised by the appellants regarding the contributory negligence of the claimant. Though the said objection was raised by the defendant-Corporation but no discussion whatsoever has been made by the learned Tribunal on the said aspect. Secondly , the amount qua ‘No Fault Liability’ to the tune of Rs.1,90,000/-

[2024:RJ-JD:3474]

[CMA-524/2020]

(2 of 5)

has been awarded without any logic or reason and totally dehors the law as there is no provision providing for any award qua ‘No Fault Liability’ while passing the final award. Thirdly , the amount of Rs.2,000/- per day for the period of 257 days of hospitalization is also on the higher side. Even, the guidelines issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority provide for an amount of Rs.600/- per day qua the said head.

¶21

Responding to the grounds as raised by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that although the Tribunal mentioned the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to be qua the head of ‘No Fault Liability’, the same was in fact qua the 40% permanent disability as incurred by the claimant. So far as the amount of Rs.2,000/- per day is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the same include the compensation qua the transportation charges, the assistant charges and other expenses also and hence, cannot be said to be exorbitant.

¶22

Responding to the ground of contributory negligence, learned counsel submitted that it is a clear case wherein the fault was completely on the part of the driver of the bus of the defendantCorporation and the claimant cannot be held to be negligent on any count.

¶23

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

¶24

A perusal of the site report (Exh.-3) as prepared by the Investigating Officer makes it clear that the claimant, who was moving from point ‘F’ to point ‘B’ was required to drive straight on a road which was ‘one way’ whereas the driver of the bus, who was moving from point ‘C’ was moving from a lane and was

[2024:RJ-JD:3474]

[CMA-524/2020]

(3 of 5)

required to cross the main highway. The bus which was moving from point ‘C’ to point ‘G’, was required not only to cross the highway but also to take a right turn towards point ‘G’. Therefore, the duty to stop before crossing the highway and then turning towards right, was upon the driver of the bus. The point of accident marked as ‘X’ in the site report makes it clear that the claimant was on the correct/right side of the road and he cannot be said to be negligent. Therefore, the finding regarding negligence of the bus driver as reached by the learned Tribunal is totally in consonance with the site report as well as the material available on record. The same does not deserve any interference and hence, finding on issue No.1 is hereby affirmed.

¶29

So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation qua different heads as under:

¶30

“9. प्ቔावली पर ्ቚस्तुत एमएलसी रिरपो्቏� की ्ቚमाणि�त ्ቚतित ्ቚद्ቦ� 6 अनुसार चि�किकत्सक ने आहत के ्ቦ रीर पर 2 �ो्቏ें साधार� व 2 गंभीर �ो्቏ें पाई। 2 साधार� �ो्቏ों की ्ቌ तितपूतित� पे्቏े 4,000 रूपये, आहत का स्थाई तिनः्ቦक्तता ्ቚमा�प्ቔ ्ቚद्ቦ� 18 अनुसार आहत को 40 ्ቚतित्ቦत स्थाई तिनः्ቦक्तता कारिरत हुई है। अतः दोषरहिहत दातियत्व पे्቏े 25,000+1,65,000-1,90,000 रूपये, कष ् एवं पीड़ा के 23,750 रूपये कुल 2,13,750 रूपये, डि:स्�ा्ቌ� हि्቏क्቏ ्ቅम्ቦः ्ቚद्ቦ� 42 अनुसार 39 हिदन, ्ቚद्ቦ� 43 अनुसार 45 हिदन, ्ቚद्ቦ� 44 अनुसार 89 हिदन, ्ቚद्ቦ� 45 अनुसार 78 हिदन व ्ቚद्ቦ� 46 अनुसार 6 हिदन कुल 257 हिदन अस्पताल में आहत भत= रहा जि्ቌसकी परिर�या�, तिनवास स्थान से बाहर भत= रहने, परिर्ቌनों के आने ्ቌ ाने व आय की ्ቌतित पे्቏े 2,000 रूपये ्ቚतितहिदन के हिहसाब से 5,14,000 रूपये, ग�ना योग्य परिरवहन व्यय व दवाईयों के बिबलो की राशि्ቦ 25,610 रूपये, �ो्቏ों की व्ቌह से आहत को कुछ हिदन आराम करना पड़ा जि्ቌसके पे्቏े 5,000 रूपये, इस ्ቚकार ्ቚाथ= कुल ्ቌ तितपूतित� राशि्ቦ 4,000+2,13,750+5,14,000+25,610+5,000=7,62,360 रूपये ्ቚाप्त करने का अचिधकारी है।"

[2024:RJ-JD:3474]

[CMA-524/2020]

(4 of 5)

A bare perusal of the above observation makes it clear that although the learned Tribunal mentioned the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to be qua ‘No Fault Liability’ but the same definitely comprised of amount qua permanent disability also. Therefore, it cannot be held that the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was awarded solely qua ‘No Fault Liability’. This Court is of the opinion that although the said amount is mentioned to be under the head of ‘No Fault Liability’, the same is clearly intended to be qua 40% permanent disability of which the certificate was exhibited as Exh.18 on record.

¶35

This Court is further of the opinion that although the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in conformity with the heads as defined under the law or in terms of the judicial precedents, but then, the amount, if calculated in terms of the guidelines issued by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority governed by the Rajasthan High Court also, the amount of compensation comes out to be more than Rs.7,62,360/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶36

Calculating in terms of the said guidelines, the amount qua permanent disability comes out to be Rs.25,000/- + (Rs.5,000x40) = Rs.2,25,000/-. The amount qua period of hospitalization if calculated @ Rs.600/- per day, the same comes out to be Rs.600x257 = Rs.1,54,200/-. The amount qua medical bills of Rs.25,610/- is to be added to the said amount. Further, the guidelines provide for compensation qua pain and suffering equal to 15% of the award amount (excluding medical bills/medical expenses) in case where the claimant is above 50 years and less than 60 years. The amount qua loss of income

[2024:RJ-JD:3474]

[CMA-524/2020]

(5 of 5)

@Rs.500/- per day for the hospitalization period also is to be calculated in the said amount. Further, no amount qua earned leaves as claimed by the claimant has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. If the amount qua the same is also to be added in the award amount, the total amount comes out to be more than Rs.7,62,360/- which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the finding qua the award of amount qua ‘No Fault Liability’ cannot be affirmed, award in question does not deserve any interference as ultimately, if the amount awarded is calculated qua legally payable heads, it comes out to be more than the amount awarded. The award hence, does not deserve any interference and the appeal is hence, dismissed .

¶41

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶42

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶43

108-T.Singh/-

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Rameshchandra Shrimali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Rameshchandra Shrimali

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

Sumitra Vs Shri Ram General Ins. Co. Ltd.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sumitra

Papparam Vs Ganga

Janakba Ugamsinh Sodha Vs All Citizen of India

Hem Kanwar Vs Hema Ram

Amara Ram Vs Umardeen