Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 325 (RAJ)

Dy. Director v. M. D. , RSRTC

2012-02-07

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 8.10.1999 passed in MAC No. 180/1995 (354/1998) whereby the appellant has been held liable to pay 25% amount of the compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.4.1995, at about 12.30 PM, Shri Anil Kumar Garg and Bajrang Singh, along with other employees of Electricity Board were going in a Government Jeep No RJ 01 C 972 from Madar to Bhairunda and they were returning in Pushkar Valley, a bus No. RNP 3306, coming down from the front side, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2, hit the jeep by coming over to wrong side. Shri Anil Kumar Garg and Bajrang Singh fell down out of the jeep and ultimately died. 3. The contention of the present appellant is that the driver of the jeep was not at all responsible for the accident and it was established by the evidence that the only bus driver was rash and negligent and hence no liability could be fastened upon the jeep. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award, which goes to show that on page No. 7, learned Tribunal has dealt with the above factual situations and it has been stated that after investigation, challan has been filed against both the involving vehicles. i.e. jeep and the truck and the learned Tribunal has also considered the site memo Ex. 3, which also goes to show that it was a head on collusion between jeep and truck and jeep was going towards Pushkar Valley, whereas the bus was coming down from the other side and looking at the fact that both the drivers were rash and negligent, 25% liability has been fastened on the jeep driver as he was going towards the upper side of the valley and comparatively less rash in his driving, whereas driver of the bus was negligent and he was coming down from the valley on a high speed. Hence, no fault can be found in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. 5. Looking at the above, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.