Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1004 (RAJ)

Kamal Kumar Sharma v. Sh. Kistoor Chand

2018-04-12

SABINA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in-fact, it was a case of composite negligence. Both the driver of the jeep as well as the driver of the bus were negligent and had caused the accident. Hence, the entire compensation could be awarded against the sole impleaded tortfeasors. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and Others (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 273 and the judgment of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Versus Ghanshyam and Another in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2175/2005 decided on 19.10.2005. 4. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand, have opposed the appeal. 5. Appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 12.04.1989. 6. Issue No.1 was framed by the Tribunal to the effect as to whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver while driving the said vehicle on 12.04.1989, which had resulted in injuries to the appellant. 7. In order to prove his case, appellant appeared in the witness box as AW-2. Appellant deposed that on 12.04.1989, he was travelling in jeep bearing No. MKW-5371. Jeep driver was driving the vehicle at a fast speed and had been told to drive carefully. When they reached 'Chota Pachana' the jeep developed some defect and had stopped. A Roadways bus had came from behind and struck against the jeep. As a result, he suffered serious injuries and was removed to the hospital. 8. AW-3 Indrakant deposed that he was travelling in the jeep on the day of accident driven by Jatan Singh. The driver of the Jeep has suddenly stopped the vehicle and a Roadways bus had struck against the same from behind. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the accident had occurred after the jeep had suddenly stopped. The jeep had developed some defect. 9. AW-4 Bhanwar Lal Sharma has deposed that he had witnessed the accident. The driver of the Jeep has suddenly stopped the vehicle and a Roadways bus had struck against the same from behind. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the accident had occurred after the jeep had suddenly stopped. The jeep had developed some defect. 9. AW-4 Bhanwar Lal Sharma has deposed that he had witnessed the accident. He was sitting in the jeep driven by Jatan Singh. When they reached 'Chota Pachana', the drive of the jeep had applied break and as a result, Roadways bus coming from behind had struck against the jeep. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police. He denied the suggestion that he had given a false statement as he was a relative of Kamal Kumar. 10. Thus, from the statement of the appellant himself, it is evident that the jeep had stopped as it had developed some defect. The Roadways bus had struck against the Jeep from behind while the jeep was not in motion. In these circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly held that accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. Rather it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of respondent No.2 Jatan Singh at the time of accident. Tribunal had rightly decided issue No.1 against the claimant. 11. While deciding issue No.4 as to whether the accident had occurred on account of negligence of a Roadways bus, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent of the driver of the vehicle, which had struck the jeep from behind. 12. However, appellant had not sought claim against the Roadways bus. In these circumstances, the claim petition filed by the appellant has been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant as in the present case, it cannot be said to be a case of composite negligence. 13. Dismissed.