General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Deen Mohammad and Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—Since these four appeals arise out of a judgment and award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.5.1999 deceased Mohar @ Rati Mohammad, Ali Khan, Akbar Khan and Isab Khan were going with their parents to Alwar in Jeep No. RJ 02 3040. At about 5.30 PM at Alwar Bharatpur road, when they reached near Nagli, RSRTC Bus No. RJ-14P-3142 came from the direction of Alwar in a zig zag situation and hit the jeep in its wrong side, as a result of which Mohar @ Rati Mohd. Ali Khan, Akbar Khan and Isab Khan succumbed to injuries.

Thereafter claim petitions were filed, notices were issued, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed different amount in different claim petitions in favour of claimants and against the RSRTC.

The RSRTC has filed the aforesaid appeals challenging the quantum of compensation.

Learned counsel for the RSRTC has contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No. 1 is absolutely illegal, perverse and contrary to the facts of the case. The evidence available on record makes it very clear that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of jeep driver, hence the appellant--Corporation cannot be held liable and as such the impugned judgment/award deserves to be quashed. He has further contended that mere fact that the driver of the Corporation has been charged sheeted by the police, cannot be the sold ground for taking a lawful presumption against the person unless the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge sheet is examined so that the aggrieved person may have an opportunity to cross examine the investigating officer to bring out the truth on record. He has further contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No. 4 is also erroneous and contrary to the law and facts of the case. The learned tribunal has assumed the jurisdiction which was not vested in it.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned award including the relevant material on record.

The learned Tribunal having analyzed the matter in detail, categorically observed that as per the investigation being conducted by the investigating agency, there appeared to be the negligence of the bus driver and AW-4 Munshi Khan, who is the eye witness of the accident, has given the evidence to the effect that there was negligence of the bus driver. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of AW-4 Munshi Khan.

So far as the question regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned, it is noticed that the claimants categorically stated that presently they were residing at Kotputli. No cross-examination is found to have been done with the claimants on the point that they were not the residents of Kotputli. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly held the claimants to be the residents of Kotputli. The learned Tribunal having considered the age and income of the deceased and applying the multiplier as per the Second Schedule appended with the M.V. Act, rightly decreed different amounts in favour of claimants and against the non claimants.

The impugned award is found not to have suffered from any legal flaw, rather it is found to be just and apposite, based on cogent finding, with which I fully concur.

For the reasons stated, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and all the four appeals filed by the RSRTC being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. The stay applications also stand dismissed accordingly.