Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1090 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Sakuntala Devi

2009-04-21

GUMAN SINGH

body2009
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant-RSRTC against the judgment and award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa vide judgment dated 13.9.96 whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded sum of Rs.2,98,000/- by way of compensation to the claimant-respondents who are dependents of deceased Kailash Chand Sharma died in the accident while he was traveling on Moped as pillion rider and the accident occurred between the Moped and the RSRTC bus causing his death in the accident. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence in right perspective while deciding that bus driver was not negligent and accident occurred on account of negligent of Moped driver in view of finding on issue no.1. It was further submitted that compensation could not be awarded to the claimants by invoking Sec.163A which was inducted in M.V. Act on 14.11.1994 while accident took place on 7.6.94 and, as such, the learned Tribunal has erred in invoking this provision in awarding the compensation to the claimant-respondents. It is also submitted that no liability can be fixed on the appellant RSRTC on the ground that it is a case of composite negligence as there is no such finding. 7. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that accident took place between RSRTC bus and Moped and the deceased was the pillion rider. The Moped driver Sh.Dinesh Kumar has been examined in the matter and he has categorically deposed that he had taken the Moped on 'Kachha' as road was single track but the RSRTC bus dashed against the Moped. The learned Tribunal has considered the fact that a Monkey was being taken on the Moped and the accident took place on account of the fact that monkey started jumping on approaching the bus from the opposite direction and thereby the driver of the Moped lost his control and dashed against the bus. The learned Tribunal has found no negligence on the part of the bus driver. The learned Tribunal has found no negligence on the part of the bus driver. This finding of the learned Tribunal is unsustainable in view of the fact that there are categorical evidence on the point that the accident had taken place on the single track road and it was also the duty of the bus driver to avoid the accident as the Moped was too small vehicle in comparison with the RSRTC bus. Thus on the evidence available on record, it appears that it is a case of composite negligence and the finding of the learned Tribunal on the point that bus driver was not negligent in the matter is not sustainable. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal is set aside as the accident is found to have occurred on account of composite negligence of two vehicles. As regards invoking the provisions of Sec.163A of the M.V. Act, it may be observed that Sec.163A which was not in force at the time of accident and as such it could not be invoked but the claimants are independently entitled to claim compensation from all or either of the joint tort feasors in a case of composite negligence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan 2008(3) SCC, 748. 8. In view of the above position of law, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal can be recovered from the RSRTC which is found to be joint tort feasors, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded in the case, calls for no interference. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant-RSRTC stands dismissed.