Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 992 (RAJ)

Chairman, R. S. R. T. C. , Jaipur v. Vana Ram

2013-05-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur ('RSRTC')-owner of the bus aggrieved against the award dated 13.11.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the claimant-injured has been awarded a sum of Rs. 74,200/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e. 25.05.1993. 2. The facts in brief are that the claimant Vana Ram was driving a jeep bearing registration number RST-4962 from Falana to Bali, when at about 11:30 PM, the bus coming from the opposite side belonging to RSRTC, which was being driven by Bhanwar Lal rashly and negligently, struck the side glass of the jeep and the glass splinter hit inside the claimant's eye, which resulted in his losing the sight in the right eye. The claimant remained admitted to the hospital and claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 6,83,000/-. The application was filed against the driver and owner of the bus as well as owner and insurer of the jeep. 3. The application was replied by the driver of the bus, who disputed the averments made in the application and alleged that in fact the applicant was drunk and was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and struck the bus, which resulted in the breakage of the wind screen, light and side glass of the bus. The owner of the jeep Shaukat Shah paid a sum of Rs. 1500/- to the RSRTC in this regard and it was also stated that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. 4. The owner of the jeep also filed a reply to the application and accused the claimant of negligence. 5. On behalf of the claimant, statements of Vana Ram were recorded and on behalf of the respondents statements of Bhanwar Lal and Shaukat Shah were recorded. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and the claimant was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 74,200/- under various heads alongwith interest as indicated above. 7. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and the claimant was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 74,200/- under various heads alongwith interest as indicated above. 7. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that a bare reading of the statements of owner of the vehicle prove beyond doubt that the claimant himself was negligent in driving the jeep and the owner had to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- to the appellant RSRTC in this regard and consequently the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is wholly without any basis and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the award impugned also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant vehemently submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is fully justified based on the documentary evidence and the appellant RSRTC as well as owner of the jeep have failed to substantiate that any sum as claimed by them was paid by said owner of the jeep to RSRTC and consequently the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 10. The present application as filed by the claimant before the Tribunal was apparently unusual as the driver not only impleaded the driver and owner of the offending bus but also impleaded his employer i.e. the owner and insurer of the jeep as well. The reason is not far to seek, inasmuch as, it has specifically been averred in the application that the owner of the jeep has not arranged for the treatment of the claimant and despite the fact that he lost sight in one eye, he has been left high and dry by the owner of the jeep and, therefore, he impleaded owner also as a party seeking compensation from him as well. 11. The owner of the jeep, who appeared as NAW-2 stated that he paid Rs. 1500/- to RSRTC for bus repairing. The amount was paid to RSRTC on account of breakage in the wind screen. He was not aware as to who was at fault and he was not at the site. In the cross-examination by the claimant, he stated that Rs. 1500/- was given by the claimant himself, regarding which, a document was executed. 1500/- to RSRTC for bus repairing. The amount was paid to RSRTC on account of breakage in the wind screen. He was not aware as to who was at fault and he was not at the site. In the cross-examination by the claimant, he stated that Rs. 1500/- was given by the claimant himself, regarding which, a document was executed. He also stated that the compromise with the RSRTC happened at the Roadway's office on the next day of the accident and Vana Ram (claimant) was also involved. 12. The said statement, which is the sheet anchor as far as appellant RSRTC is concerned, is apparently not correct, inasmuch as, the accident occurred on or around midnight of the night intervening 12th and 13th January, 1993 and it is claimed by the owner of the jeep that claimant was accompanying him when he went to the office of RSRTC and paid Rs. 1500/- and a written compromise was entered into between among the parties. However, it is the case of the claimant that on 13th morning he was taken to Bisalpur for treatment and on 14th he was referred to Pali. A look at the document Exhibit-16, which is the treatment card of Bhairav Netra Hospital, Bisalpur, indicates that the claimant was admitted on 13.01.1993 and was discharged on 14.01.1993 alongwith Exhibit-18 dated 13.01.1993 of the same hospital indicating his outdoor registration number clearly shows that on 13th the claimant was admitted at the said hospital and, therefore, his presence alongwith owner of the jeep for payment to the RSRTC is clearly belied, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the RSRTC and owner of the jeep have failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim regarding payment of Rs. 1500/- is clearly justified and does not require any interference. 13. The site inspection report Exhibit-4 prepared by the police clearly indicates that the bus was plying on the wrong side of the road and the same was found to have dragged for almost 40 ft. 1500/- is clearly justified and does not require any interference. 13. The site inspection report Exhibit-4 prepared by the police clearly indicates that the bus was plying on the wrong side of the road and the same was found to have dragged for almost 40 ft. before colliding with a tree on the other side of the road clearly goes to show that the same was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the bus and it struck the side glass of the jeep and resulted in the injury to the right eye of the claimant and consequently the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is fully justified and is, therefore, upheld. 14. The award of compensation of a sum of Rs. 74,200/- by the Tribunal under various heads also does not call for any interference as the same is just and reasonable as the claimant has lost sight in one eye and was working as a driver and after losing sight in one eye cannot continue to work as a driver. 15. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 18% from the date of application, which in the present circumstances appears to be on higher side. This Court while admitting the appeal on 22.03.1999 after noticing that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- stayed the execution of the remaining portion of the award till further orders, which was confirmed vide order dated 27.09.1999. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the claimant would be entitled to interest @ 9% in place of 18% as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of application on the amount awarded.In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 74,200/- as compensation and instead of interest @ 18% per annum, he would be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 25.05.1993 till the date of actual payment by the appellant RSRTC. The compensation be now paid by the appellant to the claimant alongwith interest within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. No costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******