Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2723 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. Jodhpur v. Paramjeet Kaur

2019-10-21

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Appellant / non-claimant has preferred the appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the following relief:- "Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 27.05.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside. The claim petition of the respondents claimants may kindly be dismissed. In the alternative, if this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the 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. Any other relief as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the appellant and in addition or / in alternative." 2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident. In CMA No.181/2006, respondent No.1 is the wife of the deceased, respondent No.2 is the son of the deceased, respondent No.3 is father of the deceased and respondent No.4 is mother of the deceased. 3. An unfortunate accident had happened on 23.06.1999, when RSRTC Bus bearing registration No.RJ 19/P/5195 Jodhpur to Hanumagarh was travelling just before Lunkarnsar on National Highway No.15. At that time, the Bus collided with a Truck bearing registration No.MH 04P-6282 coming from the opposite side, which resulted into the death of Kulwant Singh, who was the driver of the truck and Balvinder Singh co-passenger of Truck was also injured in the same accident. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC submitted that the negligence in the matter was equally of the truck, and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the contributory negligence of the Truck in question, and thus, the sole liability of the accident cannot be attributed to the Bus of RSRTC in question. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the witness of RSRTC NAW-1 Dilip Singh had clearly made a statement that the negligence in the accident was that of the Truck driver, and therefore, Bus cannot be held to be responsible for causing the accident in question. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the witness of RSRTC NAW-1 Dilip Singh had clearly made a statement that the negligence in the accident was that of the Truck driver, and therefore, Bus cannot be held to be responsible for causing the accident in question. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the driver of the Bus and Truck both expired, on account of the said accident, and thus, it is apparently an accident where the negligence of the truck ought to have been arrived at by the learned Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, refutes the submission made on behalf of the appellant. 8. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion while deciding the issue No.1 and 6 that the negligence was of the Bus because the same stand has been confirmed in the statement of independent witness A.W.3 Vijay Chand and A.W.4 Gulabi Devi. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown to this Court the site plan, and upon perusal thereof, it becomes clear that the Bus has travelled on the way to the extreme right of the road, whereas the truck in question was moving on the left side of the road and the collision had happened on the path of the truck, and thus, negligence has been rightly attributed to the Bus in question. The site plan is absolutely clear and has been prepared by the Police which is a neutral authority towards the Bus and Truck in question. 10. This Court also finds that the truck owner and Insurance Company are not party in these appeals. However, without getting influenced by the same, this Court finds that the evidence and the site plan clearly established that the negligence in question was on the part of the Bus. Thus, there is no reason to make any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal in either of the appeals. 11. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.