Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1412 (RAJ)

Phulki Bheel v. Narayan Labana

2015-07-28

VINEET KOTHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 21.09.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur, dismissing the claim petition of the appellants-claimants, on account of alleged compromise between the parties under which a sum of Rs. 8000/- was paid to the widow of the deceased by the Driver of the RSRTC Bus. 2. On 23.01.1998, the deceased Kauwa aged 40 years, who was a trained Mason, was coming from Galander to Mada on bicycle. At that time, Bus No.RJ 14 P 2578 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), being driven by the respondent No.1- Narayan caused the accident, resulting into the death of Kauwa. Thereafter, a claim petition has been filed by the father, mother, son and daughters of the deceased Kauwa before the learned Tribunal. At that time, Bus No.RJ 14 P 2578 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), being driven by the respondent No.1- Narayan caused the accident, resulting into the death of Kauwa. Thereafter, a claim petition has been filed by the father, mother, son and daughters of the deceased Kauwa before the learned Tribunal. The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference:- ^rudh la[;k&1 ¼5½ ih0MCY;w&1 Qqydh ?kVuk dh p'enhn xokg ugha gSA ih0MCY;w&2 dkyk gS th c;ku djrk gS fd e`rd dkmok mldk HkkbZ FkkA nq?kZVuk ds fnu os nksuksa ryUnj xkao esa lkFk&lkFk dke dj jgs Fks vkSj ;g xokg cl esa cSBdj rFkk dkmok lkbZfdy ij cSBdj vius xkao dh rjQ vk;s FksA xkeMh vgkMk ds ikl cl us dkmok dks VDdj ekj nh ftlls dkmok dh e`R;q gks xbZA ftjg esa og Lohdkj djrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds ckn foi{kh la[;k 1 ls jkthukek fd;k Fkk vkSj foi{kh la[;k 1 us 8]000@& :i;s fn;s FksA jkthukek esa ;g Hkh fy[k dj fn;k Fkk fd nq?kZVuk esa xyrh dkmok dh FkhA ¼6½ ih0MCY;w&1 Qqydh us iqfyl dkxtkr dh udysa izn'kZ&1 ls 8 izLrqr dh gSA ih0MCY;w&2 dkyk ds c;kuksa ls ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd nq?kZVuk foi{kh la[;k&1 ds }kjk cl dks ykijokgh ;k xQyr ls pykus ds dkj.k gqbZ cfYd ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd e`rd dkmok dh ykijokgh ls nq?kZVuk ?kVh D;ksafd nq?kZVuk ds rqjar ckn izkFkhZx.k us foi{kh la[;k 1 ls 8]000@& :i;s izkIr dj fy;s o ;g fy[kdj fn;k fd nq?kZVuk esa xyrh e`rd dh gh jghA vr% bl rudh dk fu.kZ; izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) o foi{khx.k ds gd esa fd;k tkrk gSA rudh la[;k&2 ¼7½ ;g fufoZokn gS fd fookfnr cl foi{kh la[;k&2 ds LokfeRo dh Fkh vkSj foi{kh la[;k&1 nq?kZVuk ds oDr mlds fu;kstu esa gksdj cl dks mlds ykHkkFkZ o fgrkFkZ pyk jgk FkkA vr% bl rudh dk fu.kZ; izkFkhZx.k ds gd esa o foi{khx.k fd fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA rudh la[;k&3 ¼8½ ih0MCY;w&1 Jherh Qqydh gS tks c;ku djrh gS fd mlds ifr pqukbZ dk dke djrs Fks vkSj fnu ds 100@& :i;s dekrs FksA mlds vuqlkj nq?kZVuk ds oDr mlds ifr dh mez 40 o"kZ FkhA e`rd ds nkglaLdkj o fdz;kdeZ esa 50]000@& :i;s [kpZ gq, rFkk nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k mls rFkk mlds cPpksa dks nq[k gqvkA vr% ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds oDr e`rd dh vk;q 40 o"kZ Fkh vkSj og 200@& :i;s jkstkuk dh vk; djrk FkkA ysfdu ih0MCY;w0&2 dkyk ds c;kuksa ls izekf.kr gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k us nq?kZVuk ds ckn ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd nq?kZVuk esa xyrh e`rd dkmok dh FkhA o mUgksaus foi{kh la[;k&1 ls ekuork ds vk/kkj ij 8]000@& :i;s izkIr fd;sA blds vykok =qfVjfgr nkf;Ro ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZx.k us 50]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k igys gh izkIr dj yh gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k }kjk dksbZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha ik;s tkrs gSaA vuqrks"k ¼9½ esjs mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izkFkhZx.k dk ;g vkosnu&i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA* 3. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Rajesh Panwar submits that the learned Tribunal has, after placing reliance on the compromise entered into between the parties, as alleged by the respondent No.1-Narayan, dismissed the claim petition. Smt.Phulki widow of the deceased Kauwa was not the eye witness of the said accident. Admittedly, the accident was caused by RSRTC Bus No.RJ 14 P 2578, being driven by respondent No.1-Narayan. Even though any compromise, if entered into, contrary to law or against the public policy, cannot be said to be valid in law. The respondent No.1-Narayan has not produced any document regarding the alleged compromise before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. M.P. Goswami has supported the impugned award. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal, since the learned Tribunal erred in disposing of the claim petition on the basis of the alleged compromise between the driver of the RSRTC Bus No.RJ 14 P 2578 and appellant No.-Smt. Phulki widow of the deceased Kauwa, who died at the age of 40 years in the accident which took place on 23.01.1998. The learned Tribunal should have determined the compensation in accordance with law and should not have dismissed the claim petition on the basis of the alleged compromise between the parties. 6. The present appeal of the claimants is accordingly allowed and setting aside the impugned award dated 21.09.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the claim petition afresh on merits, in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. Copy of this order may be sent to the learned Tribunal below and the concerned parties forthwith. Petition dismissed.