Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 632 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Rajeev Kumar

2013-04-01

ALOK SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act') has been filed against the award dated 8-1-2013 passed by the Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 874/1999 awarding to claimant therein, now respondent No. 1 before this court (hereinafter 'the claimant') the compensation of Rs. 8,89,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 31-8-1999 till the date of payment on account of injuries suffered by the claimant in an accident which took place on 23-2-1999 when the claimant was travelling in bus No. RJ-14/P-5140 belonging to appellant RSRTC and driven by one Devi Singh. 2. The case set up by the claimant in his claim petition under section 166 of the Act was that the accident took place on 23-2-1999 owing to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of Bus No. RJ-14/P-5140 belonging to the appellant RSRTC (hereinafter 'RSRTC') when it collided with Truck No. RJ-02/G-5502 and MH-04/H-438. It was stated that at the time of accident the claimant was 26 years old and working as Sales Manager with a private concern and drawing a salary of Rs. 13,500/- per month. It was stated that the claimant suffered 61.85% permanent disability and was thus entitled to an aggregate compensation of Rs. 24,45,800/- on various heads. 3. On notice, the RSRTC as owner of the bus and the bus Driver filed reply to the claim petition. It was submitted that there was no negligence of the bus driver at all and in fact the accident was occasioned by the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the two trucks, who have not been made party to the claim petition, consequent to which the claim petition itself was liable to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues and proceeded to record statements of witnesses. On behalf of the claimant nine witnesses were examined, including Dr. Gurudayal Singh, Dr. Usha Rani and Dr. M.R. Goyal and hundreds of documents were exhibited. On behalf of RSRTC only the driver of the offending bus Devi Singh, was examined as sole witness in defence. On behalf of the claimant nine witnesses were examined, including Dr. Gurudayal Singh, Dr. Usha Rani and Dr. M.R. Goyal and hundreds of documents were exhibited. On behalf of RSRTC only the driver of the offending bus Devi Singh, was examined as sole witness in defence. On consideration of the evidence before it, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 31-8-2001 decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and against the RSRTC and driver of the offending vehicle holding that the Driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving causing the accident of 23-2-1999 and resulting in 61.85% permanent disability to the claimant. The learned Tribunal taking into account the loss to the claimant from the accident as also loss of the future income etc. of the claimant passed an award of Rs. 8,89,000/- in favour of the claimant along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition to the date of payment. 4. The award dated 31-8-2001 was challenged by the appellant RSRTC before this court by filing misc. appeal No. 214/2002 under Section 173 of the Act. Vide order dated 21-7-2011, this court remanded the case to the Tribunal to re-determine quantum of compensation to the claimant afresh. Following the remand, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 8-1-2013 maintained the earlier award of Rs. 8,89,000/- along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. Hence this appeal. 5. In the background of the case detailed herein above, there is no issue with regard to negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to appellant RSRTC which stands concluded against the appellant. The only issue before this court in the present civil misc. appeal is as to whether the award dated 8-1-2013 is just and fair. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the impugned award. 7. Interference at the hands of this court in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the quantum of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal can only be made if compensation awarded is excessive and hence partakes the character of a windfall. 8. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the impugned award. 7. Interference at the hands of this court in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the quantum of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal can only be made if compensation awarded is excessive and hence partakes the character of a windfall. 8. Keeping in mind the limitation of this court in interfering with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under section 168 of the Act and also taking into consideration the manner of determination of compensation by the learned Tribunal in the instant case, in my considered opinion no interference with the award dated 8-1-2013 is called for. It is not in dispute that claimant was a young man of about 26 years of age at the time of accident, was working as a sales manager in private concern and his salary has been found by the Tribunal to be 4000/- per month from evidence on record. It is also not in dispute that owing to accident, attributable to the negligence of the driver of the bus owned by the appellant RSRTC, the claimant has suffered 61.85% permanent disability. In the context of the proved income of claimant, taking into account the proved permanent disability of 61.85% suffered by him and his young age of 26 year at the time of the accident, the Tribunal in my considered opinion has not committed any error in awarding compensation as 5,05,920/- for loss of income. Aside of the aforesaid, taking into consideration the nature of grievous injuries to the claimant, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- for pain and agony and Rs. 1,83,080/- and for medical expenses and Rs. 50,000/- for future treatment, all aggregating to Rs. 8,89,000/-. Interest has also been rightly awarded on the principal amount of Rs. 8,89,000/- Counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish that the amount of compensation awarded under the award of the Tribunal passed on 8-1-2013 is in any manner excessive.Consequently, I find no force in the misc. appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******