Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 727 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Guddi Devi

2013-04-09

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 15.9.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in claim Case No. 43/2003 (65/2002) whereby a compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- was awarded to the respondents No. 1 and 2 (claimants). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal while alleging that on 18.7.2002 their son Rajendra was driving jeep No. HR 16 C 1412 on Bhirani to Bhadra road where a Roadways Bus No. RJ 13 P 2144 came with high speed and bumped into the jeep driven by Rajender. The occupants of jeep No. HR 16 C 1412 Rajender and Mangi Lal received serious injuries in the said accident and on account of that both died. The claim petition was preferred against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, bus driver, jeep owner and Insurance Company with which the jeep was insured. The claim was contested on behalf of the appellants and the driver of the bus. The owner of the jeep had filed written statement and claimed that the accident took place on account of mistake of bus driver. The respondent-Insurance Company has also claimed that the accident took place due to mistake of bus driver. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal has framed as many as 5 issues. While deciding the issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has given a finding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and while deciding the other issues, has awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2. 3. The only contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for appellant is that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while deciding the issue No. 1 and has wrongly held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus No. RJ 13 P 2144. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has given finding to this effect solely on the basis of statements of AW-1 Ghudi and AW-2 Kurda Ram, whereas it was admitted position that both these witnesses were not present at the time of accident, and in view of this, their testimony has no value. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has given finding to this effect solely on the basis of statements of AW-1 Ghudi and AW-2 Kurda Ram, whereas it was admitted position that both these witnesses were not present at the time of accident, and in view of this, their testimony has no value. It is also argued that the accident, in which son of respondents No. 1 and 2 died, had taken place on account of mistake of deceased himself and, therefore, the bus driver has wrongly been held responsible for the accident. It is prayed on behalf of the appellants that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 15.9.2004 in claim Case No. 43/2003 (65/2002) may be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the judgment and award dated 15.9.2004 and has argued that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 are based upon the evidence of eye witnesses and, therefore, there is no error in the finding of learned Tribunal. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the judgment and award dated 15.9.2004. 6. The learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 has taken into consideration the statements of Guddi (AW 1), Kurda Ram (AW 2) and Harlal (AW 3) and also considered the FIR (Exhibit P/1), Charge-Sheet (Exhibit P/2), Naksa Mauka (Exhibit P/3) and Halat Mauka (Exhibit P/4) prepared by the police in connection with the accident in which driver of the jeep, Rajendra died. 7. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver while taking into consideration the fact that the bus driver had also lodged an FIR while claiming that the accident took place on account of mistake of jeep driver but the police after investigation filed charge sheet against the bus driver for the offence punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C. and the witnesses namely Guddi (PW 1), Kurda Ram (AW 2) and Harlal (AW 3) have verified the fact that the accident took place due to mistake of bus driver. 8. It is noted that Harlal (AW 3) was the eye witness of the incident and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Harlal (AW 3). 8. It is noted that Harlal (AW 3) was the eye witness of the incident and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Harlal (AW 3). In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and award dated 15.9.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra in claim Case No. 43/2003 (65/2002). 9. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******