Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 786 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Saroj Goyal

2009-03-17

N.P.GUPTA

body2009
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Corporation, being the owner of the bus, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated 12.9.1996, passed in claim No.100/92, decreeing the same for a sum of Rs.39,800/-. The claimant had also filed cross-objections on 15.4.1997, seeking enhancement of the amount awarded, to Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal had decided some 9 claim petitions, which arose out of the same accident, comprising of the victims travelling in the appellant's bus No.RJ14-1102, on 23.11.1991, from Jodhpur to Udaipur. On the way, some 13 kms. before village Sayara, in the Ghata of Ranakpur at about 2.45 in the night, the bus fell in the valley, as a result of which various persons received injuries, and one Banshi Lal died. It was alleged that the bus was being driven at a fast speed and negligently. 3. Since the award in other claims had not been assailed, the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the quantum of the compensation awarded only. 4. According to the claimant in claim No.100/92, the claimant respondent Saroj alleged to have received injuries on her head, foot and ribs, as a result of which, she cannot properly walk even now, and had also claimed, that at the time when she was travelling, she was wearing golden bangles, golden chain, and was having Rs.4000/- cash in her purse, out which Rs.200/- she has spent, balance Rs.3800/-were in her purse, and since by the accident she become unconscious, somebody had taken away all these 8 tollas gold articles, and Rs.3800/- in cash. Likewise, the other belongings which she was carrying, being Jaypuri Rajai, black shawl, one brown purse, and one Sari, were also missing. She claimed the value of golden chain and bangles to be Rs.40,000/-, and laid claim for loss of cash Rs.3800/-, Rs,600/- for Sari, 500/- for Shawl and 500/- for Rajai, thus totaling to Rs.,45,400/-. 5. In the reply, on this aspect, only a plea of denial has been taken, and it is pleaded, that claimant is not entitled to any amount as claimed in various sub-paras of para 11, which included the above claim, as the accident occurred on account of mechanical default, she did not suffer any physical disablement or financial loss, and has only laid exaggerated claim. In other words, the factum of the claimant wearing golden bangles, and chain, was not specifically denied. 6. Then coming to the evidence, the claimant Smt. Saroj has appeared in the witness-box, and has deposed on this aspect, that while travelling, she was having 4 golden bangles in her hand, and one golden chain, which somebody had taken away. Likewise, Rs.3800/-, which were with her, have also been taken away. She has purportedly produced the slip Ex.93, regarding chain and bangles. Then she stated, that apart from this, her shawl, sweater were also missing and her Sari was torn, and that the value of the gold was Rs.40,000/-. There is no effective cross-examination on this part of the statement, about the golden articles being possessed by her. Apart from giving her own statement, she has not led any other corroborative evidence, nor defence has led any evidence. 7. The learned Tribunal found, that since the accident occurred at the dead of night, and the bus has fallen in the valley, which was around 200 ft. deep, the possibility is not ruled out, that somebody may have taken away the chain and bangles of the injured passengers, which act could have been done either by the co-passengers, or by local persons. The claimant has deposed, that she became unconscious on the spot. Thus, she stood deprived of these articles because of the accident only, and thus, the learned Tribunal found the claimant to be entitled to Rs.3800/-, and Rs.30,000/- being compensation for the golden chain and bangles. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the claimant has not produced any satisfactory documentary evidence about her having purchased, or got prepared, the said golden ornaments. According to learned counsel, in that view of the matter, she is not entitled to be awarded any amount under this head. It was also contended, that all said and done, even according to the claimant, the alleged loss was on account of a theft, which might have been committed either by co-passenger, or by local persons, but then for such theft, the appellant cannot be held liable. 9. It was also contended, that all said and done, even according to the claimant, the alleged loss was on account of a theft, which might have been committed either by co-passenger, or by local persons, but then for such theft, the appellant cannot be held liable. 9. The learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, supported the award, and arguing cross-objection, submitted that the claimant is entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- for the price of the gold etc., and is also entitled to be awarded Rs.72,000/- for inefficiency to work for a future period of 30 years at @ Rs.400/- per month, and thus, has claimed that she is entitled to be awarded Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.39,800/- as awarded. 10. I have considered the submissions, and find, that the claimant has clearly stated that she got prepared these ornaments from out of her own gold ornaments, and did not purchase fresh gold, obviously therefore, she could not be expected to be having any documentary evidence, about her having purchased, or got prepared, the ornaments. Even otherwise, it can very well be taken to be a matter of common knowledge, that people hardly preserve the documents about purchase of gold ornaments, people better concentrate on preserving the gold, or gold ornaments themselves securely, and do not concentrate on the documentary evidence, about its acquisition. After all, the claimant hale from a respectable family, in whose community this minimum ornaments are usually worn by ladies of this social status, as such it can reasonably be believed, that she was wearing this minimum amount of ornaments. It is also not uncommon that in such accident, at such dead hour of night, anti social elements are ready to make other buck. Thus, I do not find any fault in the finding of the learned Tribunal, about loss of the golden ornaments and the cash. So far as the value of the gold is concerned, of course, claimant has deposed it to be worth of Rs.40,000/-, while the learned Tribunal has assessed it at Rs.30,000/-. The accident relates to the year 1991, and it is not shown by the claimant, by leading positive evidence, as to what was the price of gold at that time, and therefore, the award of Rs.30,000/- for the gold articles cannot be said either to be excessive or inadequate. The accident relates to the year 1991, and it is not shown by the claimant, by leading positive evidence, as to what was the price of gold at that time, and therefore, the award of Rs.30,000/- for the gold articles cannot be said either to be excessive or inadequate. Thus, the appeal of the appellant is devoid of any merit. 11. So far as cross-objections are concerned, as found above, there is no error on the part of the learned Tribunal in not assessing value of the gold at Rs.40,000/-. Then so far as the claim for compensation for future inefficiency is concerned, the claimant is not shown to have sustained any grievous injury, nor is there anything to show, that she suffered any such permanent disablement, as may entitle her to a recurring compensation, for a particular number of years. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a total sum of Rs.11,000/-, for the pain and agony, and the injuries suffered. I do not find any ground to increase that amount either. 12. Thus, the cross-objections are also devoid of any merit. 13. The net result is, that the appeal and cross-objections, are both dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.