Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2556 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. Jaipur v. Farida Banu

2019-09-23

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC prays that the service upon respondent No.5 may be dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellant. 2. On such prayer, the service upon respondent No.5 is dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellant-RSRTC. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 4. Appellant-Rsrtc has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming the following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 27.07.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nathdwara may kindly be quashed and set aside. The claim petition of the respondents / claimants may kindly be dismissed. In the alternate, if this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that driver of the Corporation vehicle has contributed in the accident, then his contribution may kindly be assessed on the basis of evidence on record and compensation awarded may kindly be reduced accordingly." 5. The unfortunate accident happened on 07.12.2005 at about 2.45 P.M. on National Highway No.8 when deceased Jakir Hussain, who was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ 30 M.719 and was coming from Nathdwara to Lal Mandari, was struck by the roadways bus bearing registration No.RJ 24-P-2492. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC submitted that issue no.1 has been wrongly decided by the learned Tribunal, as there was no sufficient evidence to prove the negligence of the driver of the roadway bus. It is also contended that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is out of sole testimony of one witness whereas the fact of the deceased Jakir Hussains coming out on his motorcycle from the workshop was established, and thus, the collision was due to the contributory negligence of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants however, submitted that apart from the evidence rendered by the eye witness Lal Mohammad, who had lodged the FIR, which is also on record, it is also apparent that the driver of the Bus in question did not protest or file a counter report regarding the negligence of the motorcycle rider. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants however, submitted that apart from the evidence rendered by the eye witness Lal Mohammad, who had lodged the FIR, which is also on record, it is also apparent that the driver of the Bus in question did not protest or file a counter report regarding the negligence of the motorcycle rider. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention of this Court towards the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal, in which, the learned Tribunal has taken into account the site plan of the accident, which was exhibit-3 in the police investigation, and the place shown in the site plan clearly reflected that the roadways bus came to the wrong side, and thus, struck the motorcycle causing death of its driver Jakir Hussain. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that eye witness Lal Mohammad had lodged the FIR and in which the investigation was made by an independent investigating agency and a site plan was prepared. The said site plan indicated Point-B, as the place of accident and Point-B apparently put the roadways bus on the wrong side, as a result whereof, the accident in question was caused. The averments made by learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC that the sole witness was the rider of another motorcycle, who deposed that deceased Jakir Hussain was coming out from Laxmi Motor Garage and thus, was completely liable to remain careful and cautious, while joining the road in question, cannot be believed at this stage, as the site plan prepared by the investigating agency is a neutral document and at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. 10. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is absolutely justified and does not call for any interference at this stage. 11. Consequently, the present civil misc. appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.