Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 863 (RAJ)

RSRTC, Sardarsahar v. Jagdish Prasad

2014-04-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 12.6.2007 passed by the M.A.C.T., Rajgarh in Accident Claim Case No. 11/2006. 2. Facts in brief are that on 9.1.2006, Pawan Kumar, a school going boy was returning from his school in a school bus. He got down at the Bhalau bus stand at about 5-5.30 P.M. and was crossing the road. At that time a roadways bus owned by the appellant Corporation bearing registration No. RJ 31 P 1028, allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver, Lakshman Singh hit Pawan Kumar. As a result, the child expired at the spot. Deepa Ram an eyewitness of the incident registered an F.I.R. against Laxman Singh the driver of the offending vehicle. The police, after investigation filed a charge-sheet against Laxman Singh for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. 3. The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 being the father, mother and the brother of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 15,39,000/- in all. 4. The Tribunal, whilst accepting the claim application filed by the respondent claimants awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to them for the death of Pawan Kumar. 5. The appellant Road Transport Corporation has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal seeking reversal of the award. 6. Mr. Anil Bachawat learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the accident occurred because of the contributory negligence of the deceased himself. The child suddenly and without taking due care and caution of looking to both the sides, started running on the main road. Thus, as per him, it is a case of contributory negligence. He thus urged that the Tribunal was unjustified in awarding compensation to the claimants by fixing hundred percent negligence on the respondent No. 2, the driver of the bus involved in the accident. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents is also unjustly high and thus, the same be reduced. 7. Per contra, Shri G.R. Poonia learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence available on record established beyond all manner of doubt that the driver of the appellant's bus drove his vehicle rashly and negligently causing the accident. 7. Per contra, Shri G.R. Poonia learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence available on record established beyond all manner of doubt that the driver of the appellant's bus drove his vehicle rashly and negligently causing the accident. He further submitted that the deceased was a 14 years old school going boy, when he was crushed to death by the rash and negligent driving of the appellant's driver. He submitted that as a matter of fact, the compensation awarded to the appellants is on the lower side and this Court should exercise the powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the C.P.C. for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. The specific plea of the claimants in the claim application was that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and thereby he caused the accident. AW-2, Ramjilal was examined as an eye-witness on behalf of the claimants. He specifically stated that the bus driver drove his bus rashly and negligently and thereby caused the accident. The place where the accident occurred was a thickly populated area being a bus stand. As per the evidence available on record, the deceased had gotten down from his school bus at the bus stand and was crossing the road when he was hit by the offending bus. I looking to the place where the collision occurred, the bus driver was required to exercise extra care and caution in driving his bus while passing through the area. The driver Laxman Singh himself appeared in evidence on behalf of the appellant Corporation. He in his testimony stated that he was trying to overtake another bus. As per him, the deceased, suddenly came across the Road and despite ail efforts and application of emergency brakes, he could not prevent the collision. The circumstances, as are evidence from the driver's own testimony clearly point his own rashness and negligence. Firstly, he was trying to overtake another vehicle in a thickly populated area which by itself is an indicator of the negligent fashion, in which he was driving the bus. The circumstances, as are evidence from the driver's own testimony clearly point his own rashness and negligence. Firstly, he was trying to overtake another vehicle in a thickly populated area which by itself is an indicator of the negligent fashion, in which he was driving the bus. Secondly, it is evident that the bus was being driven at an excessive speed because, despite the application of emergency brakes as stated by the driver, the bus could not be stopped so as to prevent the collision. Thus, on both the counts, the rashness, negligence and the culpability of the appellant's river in causing the accident is manifest. 9. In view of the aforesaid, discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal committed no error or illegality in holding the driver of the offending vehicle responsible for causing the collision. As a result, there remains no question of reducing the claim on the theory of contributory negligence of the victim in causing the accident as propounded by the appellant's Counsel. 10. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal v. Lala reported in 2013(10) SCALE 580 awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the death of a child aged 15 years. Thus, in the instant case this Court is of the view that as the deceased was a young school going boy of 14 years at the time of his untimely death in the Road accident, the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded to the claimants cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the appellant's driver was responsible for causing the accident and in awarding compensation o Rs. 2,50,000/- to the claimants. No interference is warranted in the impugned judgment cum award in the instant appeal.The appeal thus being meritless is rejected. No cost.The record be sent back to the Tribunal.Appeal dismissed. *******