Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1934 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Indra

2013-11-07

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.4.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur, whereby for death of one Ganga Ram, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 20.1.2009. 2. Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : the deceased Ganga Ram was going from Paota Subji Mandi to Rai-ka-Bagh, when a bus belonging to the appellant and driven by its driver Oma Ram struck him and the deceased came under the rear wheel of the bus and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. 3. The application for compensation was filed by his daughter Indra and two sons Rajesh and Ramesh, all three of them major. 4. A reply to the application was filed by the appellant- Corporation and it was claimed that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself and not on account of any negligence by the driver. 5. The Tribunal framed two issues and based on the evidence led by the claimants i.e. AW-1 Rajesh and AW-2 Sanjay, who was eye-witness to the accident, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. The Tribunal without considering the loss of income awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that from the record it is apparent that the accident occurred on account of negligence by the deceased himself and therefore, the appellant - Corporation cannot be held liable for making payment of the amount of compensation. It is further submitted that all the three claimants are major, there is no question of any dependency on the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a lump sum compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned, it is submitted that from the available material on record alongwith the version of the eye-witness, it is proved that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the same, which resulted in the accident. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-, which does not require any interference. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-, which does not require any interference. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. The FIR in the case was lodged by Rajesh, who lodged the FIR based on the version of his father deceased Ganga Ram, who telephoned him after the accident and gave out the version of the accident i.e. that the bus struck him from behind and he was injured on account of coming under the rear wheel of the bus. The contents of the FIR and version of AW-2 Sanjay, who was eye-witness to the said accident does not give any reason to interfere regarding the negligence of the driver of the bus. 10. So far as the award of lump sum compensation is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the deceased was survived by three major children and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013 ACJ 1403 . The award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the claimants even for the loss of love and affection from their father and funeral expenses etc. does not call for any interference. 11. Accordingly, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******