Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 277 (RAJ)

General Manager, R. S. R. T. C. v. Bhagwan

2011-02-07

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This misc. appeal has been filed by the General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (in short the non-claimant appellant) against the award dated 18.2.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar wherein the claimant Shri Bhagwan (in short claimant-respondent) was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 61,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 25.10.1995 at 5.30 p.m. at Tatgarh Road near Bus Stand Beawar. 3. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 4. In the claim petition it was averred by the claimant respondent that on 25.10.1995 when he was trying to enter in the Bus No. RNB 1403 belonging to the non-claimant appellant, suddenly the driver of the bus started the bus and put it into motion due to which the claimant respondent fell down and he sustained injuries. The driver of the bus filed written statement stating that the claimant respondent was trying to enter in the bus through window and hence he himself was negligent. The non-claimant appellant also filed written statement and stated that the claimant respondent being minor is not entitled to file claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed 6 issues and also recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimant-respondent himself appeared as a witness whereas two witnesses were produced by the non-claimant appellant. The MACT after hearing the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the claimant respondent and vide award dated 18.2.1998 awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 61,000/- along with interest @ 12 per cent payable thereon from 8.11.1995 till the actual date of payment. 5. The learned counsel for the non-claimant appellant contended that the MACT erred in deciding issues No.1 and 5 against the appellant. The evidence available on record clearly shows that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant respondent. The MACT disbelieved the sole evidence of Ganpat Singh, who is an independent witness who stated that the claimant was trying to enter into the bus through window. The learned counsel contended that the injured claimant respondent received only two simple injuries and for that the MACT excessively awarded the amount of Rs. 61,000/- to the claimant. 6. The MACT disbelieved the sole evidence of Ganpat Singh, who is an independent witness who stated that the claimant was trying to enter into the bus through window. The learned counsel contended that the injured claimant respondent received only two simple injuries and for that the MACT excessively awarded the amount of Rs. 61,000/- to the claimant. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant respondent contended that the MACT awarded he amount of Rs. 61,000/- after considering the evidence produced by both the parties and the documents submitted by the claimant-respondent. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. I have gone through the judgment of the MACT. The MACT after relying on the evidence of the claimant respondent and the evidence produced by the non-claimant appellant, decided the issues 1 and 5 in favour of the claimant respondent. The claimant received the injuries and it was not possible for a person to board the bus from window and the claimant must have trying to board the bus from the entry gate, received the injuries and in these circumstances the MACT has passed the award after considering the evidence produced by the parties. The MACT observed in the award as under : ^^11- tgk¡ rd Hks:flag ds c;kuksa dk iz'u gS ;g Lo;a fgrorhZ xokg gS rFkk ?kVuk ds rqjar ckn mlds fo:) tks izFke bZryk lwpuk iz-1 ntZ djokbZ xbZ gS mlesa Li"V :i ls izkFkhZ Hkxoku }kjk ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd Hks:flag us igys xkM+h [kM+h djnh rFkk tc og cl esa p<+us yxk rks mlus xkM+h nqckjk pyk nh ftlls og fQlydj lM+d ij fxj x;k ftlls mlds pksVsa vkbZA------** ^^----- i=koyh ij miyC/k lkexzh ls ;g Li"V izekf.kr gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ Hks:flag }kjk fnukad 25-11-95 dks 'kke ds 5 cts ds vklikl jksMost dh cl la- vkj,uih 1403 dks pkax xsV ij cl LVs.M ds igys ,d ckj jksdk x;k rFkk tc izkFkhZ Hkxoku mlesa p<+us yxk rks mlds }kjk nqckjk cl dks jokuk dj fn;k x;k ftlls fQly dj izkFkhZ uhps fxj x;k -----** 8. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT on the issues 1 and 5. The claimant respondent fell down on account of the fact that the driver drove the bus suddenly. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT on the issues 1 and 5. The claimant respondent fell down on account of the fact that the driver drove the bus suddenly. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper. The award does not call for any interference in this misc. appeal and the same stands rejected. The non-claimant respondent has already deposited Rs. 30,000/- and is further directed to deposit the rest amount of the award and the interest as directed by the MACT and disbursed the same as early as possible to the claimant respondent. The stay granted by this Court stands vacated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.