Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 388 (RAJ)

Ramayan v. R. S. R. T. C.

2012-02-09

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 9.4.2002 in MAC No. 1360/1996, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the on 21.6.1996, at about 6.00 p.m., Ganga Sahai, deceased, along with his son Girraj were traveling in a bus No. RJ-14P-1081 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2. Due to high speed of the bus, the said vehicle was jumping and driver of the bus applied breaks suddenly due to which Ganga Sahai fell down out of the bus. He was admitted in the SMS Hospital where he died. The legal heirs of Ganga Sahai preferred claim petition which was dismissed on the ground that it was not proved that the bus was involved in the accident. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, specially the impugned judgment and award. 4. The contention of the present appellants is that the learned Tribunal has not considered the FIR and charge-sheet filed against the driver for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. It was proved from the documentary evidence that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. It was admitted by the respondent No.1 that at the time of accident, bus was driven by he respondent No.2. Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act also goes to show that the bus was involved in the accident. 5. Ex.1, FIR has been placed before the Tribunal, in which it as alleged by Kaluram that he, Vishnu and Lallu were going in a matador and the impugned bus was going ahead to them and when the bus reached near GSS, Goner Road, the driver put the breaks suddenly and one passenger fell down of the bus who was known to him and he was Ganga Sahai. Vishnu, who was stated to be in the matador, has appeared before the Tribunal as AW-4 and he has specifically stated that the bus was going on a high speed and the deceased fell down of the bus and the First Information was lodged by Kaluram, Kailash and other passengers traveling in the bus has also corroborated the factum of accident and Girraj AW-31 who is the son of the deceased and was traveling with the deceased in the bus at the time of accident, has stated that the bus driver applied the breaks suddenly due to which his father fell down from the bus. 6. In reply to the claim petition, it was stated that the bus driver was not negligent and the claimant was not traveling in the bus, rather he was hanging on the rear light of bus. But, in the statement of NAW-1, Rajgiri, who was the driver of the bus at the relevant time, it has been stated that no accident has occurred on that day. He has not stated before the Tribunal on oath that the deceased was hanging on the rear light of the bus. He has admitted that challan has been filed against him for the accident. Site plan of the place of occurrence has also been placed on record. Hence, there was ample evidence before the learned Tribunal to prove the factum of accident as well as negligence of the impugned bus. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that there is no need to establish facts beyond reasonable doubt and he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. ( 2009 ACJ 1725 = 2009(1) CCR 627 (SC)), wherein in para No. 15, the Supreme Court has held as under: "In a situation of this nature, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view in the matter. It was necessary to be borne in the mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. for the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set-forth by both the parties." 8. In the light of the above legal position, it is considered that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding issue No.1 is not sustainable and it was proved before the Tribunal that the impugned bus was involved in the accident and accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Rajgiri and hence issue No.1 stands decided in favour of the claimants. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the impugned judgment and award 9.4.2002 passed by the learned MACT, Jaipur is quashed and set aside. The issue No.1 is decided in favour of the claimants-appellants and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for passing appropriate award. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 16.3.2012. The record of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal.