Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1074 (RAJ)

Managing Director v. Jethi Dei

2001-07-13

PRAKASH TATIA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the award dated 13.11.2000 by which the Tribunal has passed the total award of Rs. 1,56,680/- and awarded interest from the date of filing the claim petition @ of Rs. 12 per cent per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.2.1981 at about 9.15 p.m. the appellants' bus met with an accident with one Chetan Das and Chetan Das died leaving behind the claimants as his successors who are wife and son of the deceased Chetan Das. The claim petition has been filed after coming into force the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for Rs. 17,23,000/-. In reply to the claim petition the appellants admitted that Chetan Das died due to the accident of the bus of the appellant and at the time of accident Razak Ali non-applicant No. 1-respondent No. 3 was the driver of the vehicle but it is submitted by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal that a claim petition has been filed after 17 years and, therefore, it is barred by time as per the provisions of limitation provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is also submitted that there was no negligence of the driver Razak Ali and in fact the deceased who was on cycle due to his own fault died. It is also alleged that appellants are not liable for the damages. 3. The trial Court framed the issues. The claimants produced witnesses AW-1 Smt. Jethi Devi, AW-2 Krishna Kumar and AW-3 Magniram alongwith the documentary evidence. In rebuttal to the above evidence the bus driver Razak Ali was examined as NAW-1. In turn, award was passed in favour of the claimants for which amount has been paid. The trial Court after considering the evidence and documents held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Razak Ali and determined the quantum for damages. 4. In this appeal it is submitted that since the claim petition has been filed after lapse of 17 years on the date of accident and there was no sufficient ground for not filing the claim petition within the period of limitation, therefore, the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition. I am unable to accept the above submission in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 1996 (6) JT 601 . I am unable to accept the above submission in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 1996 (6) JT 601 . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the claim petition can be filed in case of accident occurred prior to the coming into force of the New Act. In addition to above, in view of the reasoning given in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Man Singh v. Gamer Rebari & Anr., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 48/2000 decided on 15.12.2000 the contention raised by the appellant has no merit and hence rejected. 5. It is also submitted in the appeal that there are no sufficient evidence to hold rash and negligent driving of which the driver Razak Ali respondent No. 3 for which it is submitted that AW-3 Magnilal admitted that he has not claimed to have seen the accident mentioned in the FIR. It is proved as a matter of fact that when the FIR was lodged immediately and one of the witnesses AW-3 Magniram himself filed the FIR then his credibility with respect to his presence cannot be in doubt. The relevant documents, to show the circumstances of the accident, were placed on record, which are the site inspection map (Ex.5) and the site inspection record [Ex.6] were also considered alongwith the FIR [Ex.3] by the Tribunal. In rebuttal to the evidence of the claimants alongwith the documentary evidence there is statement of only Razak Ali driver naturally who is an interested witness. Therefore, when the Tribunal has relied upon the evidence, of the claimant supported by documentary evidence I do not think it proper to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The Police also filed the challan against the driver Razak Ali which was also a relevant fact. Hence, there is another ground to hold that there were sufficient circumstances to prove rash and negligent driving of the driver. 6. So far as quantum awarded to the claimants is concerned, it is relevant to mention here that the deceased was of the age of 27 years only. Claimants placed on record the salary certificate Ex.2. The deceased was in service of the Rajasthan Police. It is also submitted that in case the deceased remained in service in normal course he would have raised to the highest permissible post under service rules. Claimants placed on record the salary certificate Ex.2. The deceased was in service of the Rajasthan Police. It is also submitted that in case the deceased remained in service in normal course he would have raised to the highest permissible post under service rules. The Tribunal has very carefully assessed that the claimants suffered loss of Rs. 670/- per month and, therefore, awarded Rs. 1,36,680/- only to the claimants. On this count and for other counts also the amount awarded, in totality the total award of Rs. 1,56,680/- has been passed, which cannot be said to be in excess but it appears to be certain on lower side only.Hence, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed. *******