Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1195 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Dilip Singh Premi

2012-05-09

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2012
RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant RSRTC challenging the award dated 30/7/2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu whereby a sum of Rs.3,12,611/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant for damage of Car No.RJ.18 T-0156 and Rs.30,000/- for 'loss of income for ten months' @Rs.3000/- per month. The car was damaged in an accident took place on 11/3/2001 with the bus of the appellant-RSRTC. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC in assailing the award of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal erred in law while holding driver of the bus of the RSRTC solely liable for the damage caused to the car of the claimant, whereas he was not at all negligent in driving the bus. It was the own mistake of the claimant, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner inasmuch as, he was trying to overtake the private bus and in this process collided with the bus of the RSRTC. The car in fact was collided with the private bus. Therefore, the RSRTC is liable to be exonerated from its liability to make payment of compensation to the claimant. It is stated that in reply to the claim petition the RSRTC denied having the accident took place and the car badly damaged due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the bus but the accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the private bus and driver of the car. The car was slightly damaged. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and argued that the accident took place due to the own negligence of the driver of the bus of the RSRTC therefore award of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, which is just and reasonable. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that the RSRTC failed to prove before the Tribunal that driver of the bus was not negligent and bus was dashed behind the car slightly, whereas Exb.16 'seizure memo of car' shows that backs-side bumper and dikki of the car was badly damaged, which was only possible when bus might have dashed the car forcefully from behind. This shows the the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. This shows the the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The plea of the driver therefore before the Tribunal that he was driving the bus in a moderate speed of 30-40 kms. due to the car proceeding ahead the bus, cannot be accepted because had the bus was being plied in that moderate speed of 30-40 kms. per hour, upon turning the bus on the kaccha left side road and applying the breaks immediately, dikki of the ambassador car might not have badly damaged and the possible accident would have been avoided. Otherwise also, it was the bounden duty of the driver of the bus to take precaution while any vehicle was proceeding ahead the bus. Therefore, the plea taken by the RSRTC that the negligence was not on the part of the driver of the bus, cannot be accepted. Driver of the bus of the RSRTC was solely negligent in driving the bus rashly and negligently and the police also filed charge sheet against him. I therefore do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.