Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2406 (RAJ)

Velji v. Baburam

2019-09-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimant Velji being aggrieved of the judgment dated 15.01.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Claim Case No. 18/1996 whereby, the claim application filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming damages pursuant to the death of his wife Smt. Indra in a road accident, was rejected. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below: The claimant's wife Smt. Indra was travelling in Bus No. RJ-19-P-1439 affiliated with the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur and insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. When the bus reached just ahead of the Police Chowki Dholapali opposite the hotel of Mangilal Nagarachi, Smt. Indra, who was sitting on the seat No. 35, felt nauseated. She took out her head of the window to vomit. A truck No. RJ-14-G-0081 insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was parked on the road. The bus driver, drove the bus without maintaining proper distance from the stationary truck as a result of which, the head of Indra, aged 18 years, collided with an iron angle protruding from the truck and she died on the spot. The claimant filed the claim application seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 5,81,000/- before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the deceased herself, took out her head from the moving vehicle and thus, she herself fully contributed to the accident and thus, her husband herein was not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. 4. Shri Abhinav Jain, Advocate representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the bus driver as well as the truck driver were negligent and partly responsible for causing the accident. He contended that it was the duty of the bus driver to maintain appropriate distance from the stationary/parked truck. By not doing so, he put the life of the passengers at risk. The truck driver parked the truck on the muddy road and thus, he too was partially responsible for the accident. Thus, as per Shri Jain, the impugned judgment-cum-award is bad in the eyes of law as well as on facts and the appeal should be accepted. 5. By not doing so, he put the life of the passengers at risk. The truck driver parked the truck on the muddy road and thus, he too was partially responsible for the accident. Thus, as per Shri Jain, the impugned judgment-cum-award is bad in the eyes of law as well as on facts and the appeal should be accepted. 5. Per contra, Sarva Shri L.M. Lodha, Advocate representing the respondent Oriental Insurance Company, Shri D.K. Joshi, Advocate representing the respondent RSRTC and Ms. Sanoli Bhandari, Advocate representing the respondent United Insurance Company, vehemently and fervently urged that the deceased Smt. Indra was entirely responsible for the collision which ended her life. By taking her head out from the moving bus, she voluntarily put her own life to risk and as such, neither the Insurance Company nor the Roadways nor the truck driver owner or the insurer can be held responsible to compensate the claimant. 6. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. It is an undisputed factual position as appearing from record that Smt. Indra was travelling in the roadways bus No. RJ-19-P-1439. She felt nauseated on which, she was compelled to take out her head so as to ease her symptoms by vomiting. True it is that by doing so, she acted negligently, however, it is equally true that the driver of the bus, while driving the bus on the highway was required to maintain appropriate distance between any vehicle moving on the road or parked thereby. Manifestly, a passenger sitting inside the bus cannot take out his/her head from the window to any significant extent and it can safely be presumed that the bus driver maintained virtually no distance whatsoever between the bus and the stationary truck and as a result, Indra's head was struck by the stationary truck parked on the road. Thus, the bus driver was equally responsible for causing the accident. The truck driver parked his truck on the road and an angle was protruding therefrom as is evident from the material available on record and the statements of the witnesses. By doing so, he too contributed to the accident by acting in a rash and negligent manner. 8. Thus, the bus driver was equally responsible for causing the accident. The truck driver parked his truck on the road and an angle was protruding therefrom as is evident from the material available on record and the statements of the witnesses. By doing so, he too contributed to the accident by acting in a rash and negligent manner. 8. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the opinion that all the three i.e. the deceased herself, the bus driver as well as the truck driver equally contributed to the accident and were responsible for the same. Thus, while accepting the appeal, the claimant is held entitled to receive compensation by deducting 1/3rd of the claim amount towards the contributory negligence of the victim herself. In view of the fact that the victim was a married woman aged about 18 years on the date of accident and, since no significant evidence was led to prove her income, quantifying the damages to a lump-sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- would subserve the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment-cum-award dated 15.01.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Claim Case No. 18/1996 is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to damages quantified to Rs. 2,00,000/- of which, a sum of Rs. 66,000/- (33%) is deducted on account of contributory negligence of the deceased. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- shall be paid to the appellant claimant with interest applied @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realisation. The claimant appellant has already been paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards no fault liability which shall be deducted from the compensation awarded by this Court. The respondent insurance companies shall deposit the amount awarded in a ratio of 50% each with the Tribunal within a period of three months. 10. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith.