Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 786 (RAJ)

Radha Devi v. Sharif Beg

2011-04-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since the controversy involved in all the aforesaid misc. appeals arise of common facts and judgment/award, hence same are being decided by this common judgment/award. 2. By filing instant misc. appeals the appellants have challenged the Judgment/Award dated 4.3.2006 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants claimants has been partly allowed and an award has been passed in favour of the claimants appellants and against the respondents/non-claimants jointly and severally. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.11.98, Mool Chand Meena, SHO, Police Station, Naseerabad City received an information on telephone from Gulab Singh, ASI that near village Budhpura one tanker and bus are burning and in that 25-30 persons have burnt. Upon that the SHO along with police personnel reached at the spot. When they went at the site then they found one tanker bearing No. GJ-12-U-5371, which was filled up from petrol and one private bus bearing RSH-1511 in burning condition. At the spot, Neelambar, SHO of Police Station Naseerabad also came. When they enquired about the alleged incident from the villagers then they came to know that the aforesaid tanker was coming towards Naseerabad and near about 3:15 p.m., petrol started leaking. The driver of the tanker tried to stop the petrol leaking but with no result and it increased. Some person lit the fire from match box, as a result of which the petrol which was lying nearby the road, caught fire. The tanker and the bus also caught fire. At the spot Sayari, Kana, Pappu and Pukhraj died and 25-30 persons received injuries. 4. FIR was lodged regarding the alleged incident. Thereafter, claimants appellants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment/award. Hence, the aforesaid misc. appeals before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the compensation amount on the account of contributory negligence, ignoring the evidence on record. Thus, the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in taking the contrary view from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. He further submits that SB Civil Misc. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the compensation amount on the account of contributory negligence, ignoring the evidence on record. Thus, the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in taking the contrary view from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. He further submits that SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1946/2006, Smt. Keshi vs. Sharif Beg and Others, which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 16.3.2007. He submits that in that appeal the question of contributory negligence was not involved. In that case the learned Tribunal held the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker, therefore, that appeal was only on the point of quantum of compensation, hence the judgment passed in that appeal is not binding upon the present appeals in which the learned Tribunal has deduced 50% of the amount awarded towards the contributory negligence of the victims, therefore, the judgment passed in that appeal is not at all applicable in the present appeals. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Dayanu Patil & Anr. vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1769 . 7. On the other hand Mr. T.P. Sharma and Mr. H.L. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents have seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment/award passed properly considering the facts of the case, statements of the witnesses and other material made available to it. They submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed one of the appeal on 16.3.2007 filed by one of the claimant bearing SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1946/2006, Smt. Keshi vs. Sharif Beg and others. They submit that against the judgment dated 16.3.2007 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the appellant Smt. Keshi in that appeal did not file any Special Leave to Appeal (Petition) before Hon'ble the Apex Court. Thus, the judgment dated 16.3.2007 by which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court confirmed the Judgment/Award of the learned Tribunal has attained finality. Lastly, they submit that the points involved in the cases which are in hand, are similar to the facts of the case, which has since been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.3.2007. Thus, the judgment dated 16.3.2007 by which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court confirmed the Judgment/Award of the learned Tribunal has attained finality. Lastly, they submit that the points involved in the cases which are in hand, are similar to the facts of the case, which has since been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.3.2007. Thus, the Judgment/Award dated 4.3.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the claimants and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me during the course of arguments. 9. It appears from the award that the learned Tribunal has awarded sufficient compensation to the claimants in the head of pain and suffering, died, transportation, attendant and also for loss of income. Thus, the appellants have not been found entitled to be paid on any other counts. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that interference by the High Court in an appeal should be minimal and only in cases where the trial Court judgment is perverse or does not flow from the evidence. The judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal is completely based on correct appreciation of evidence and it need no interference of this Court. 10. In the result, the aforesaid misc. appeals being devoid of merit, are dismissed and the Judgment/Award dated 4.3.2006 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar, is maintained.