Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1854 (RAJ)

Chief Manager v. Jagmeet Kaur

2021-09-27

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard and decided finally. 2. The present appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 12/07/2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in Motor Accident Claims Case Nos. 492/2015 & 556/2015. 3. Vide judgment and award dated 12/07/2016, the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Hardeep Singh and Rs.93,610/- on account of the injuries suffered by Jagmeet Kaur in the accident which occurred on 04/02/2015. 4. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petitions vide its judgment and award dated 12/07/2016 as stated hereinabove. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while adjudicating the claim applications of the claimants, the factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal are in-conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157. The finding on the quantum does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Learned counsel submits that as far as the finding of the Tribunal recorded on issue No.3 is concerned, the same is erroneous. He submits that the bus of the appellant was being driven on the correct side and because of the fault of the driver of the jeep who was driving the jeep rashly and negligently, the accident occurred in the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal has fell in error while recording the finding on Issue No.3. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the finding of the Tribunal recorded on issue No.3 does not suffer from any infirmity in the light of the site plan prepared by the Police during the course of investigation. He submits that since the jeep was being driven from Rawatsar to Hanumangarh, therefore, the same was being correctly driven on the left side of the mid-line of the highway, whereas the bus which was coming from the opposite direction i.e. from the side of Hanumangarh crossed the mid-line and travelled towards the right side of the mid-line causing the accident. Thus, the bus was not driven in correct side as the same was being driven rashly and negligently causing the accident in the present case. Therefore, the finding on issue No.3 is just and proper. 8. Thus, the bus was not driven in correct side as the same was being driven rashly and negligently causing the accident in the present case. Therefore, the finding on issue No.3 is just and proper. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. 9. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 is fortified from the bare perusal of the Ex.P.4 - site plan prepared by the Police during the course of investigation where the Police has marked the place of accident as 'X' on the left side of the mid-line of the road. Further the examination of the site plan shows that the bus was being driven from Hanumangarh to Rawatsar and the same should have kept on the left side of the road whereas it crossed the other side crossing the mid-line and caused the accident in the present case. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was negligent is justified. As far as the factors taken into consideration for computing the award in the present case are concerned, the same do not call for any interference as the same appear to be just and proper. 10. Resultantly, there is no force in the appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed.