Managing Director And Ors vs Shankarlal And Ors

The appellant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation'), has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') assailing impugned judgment and award dated 11th of October, 2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the injured respondent-claimant Shankarlal amounting to Rs.96,098/-.

The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that on 13th of May, 2010 respondent-claimant Shankarlal was going from Rajasar Bhatiyan to Bikaner in a private bus bearing registration No. RJ-07-P-2965. When the bus reached village Bharu, Corporation bus No.RJ-13-PA-1571, driven rashly and negligently, dashed the private bus parked on right side of the road due to which appellant and other passengers suffered injuries. Claim petition filed by respondent-claimant was contested by appellant Corporation and other parties and they filed written statements denying the averments of claim petition as usual. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed three issues and the respective parties tendered oral as well as documentary evidence. Finally, the learned Tribunal, after hearing arguments of rival parties, by the impugned judgment and award, held the appellant Corporation liable for payment of compensation to the present respondent-claimant, as aforementioned.

The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that assessment of compensation amount payable to respondent-claimant in this appeal is per-se erroneous and contrary to the available material. Learned counsel submits that crucial issue of rash and negligent driving by driver of Corporation bus decided by learned Tribunal is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award cannot be sustained against appellant-Corporation.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and award.

Learned Tribunal while deciding the issue relating to rash and negligent driving by driver of appellant Corporation has discussed the evidence of injured A.W.1 Shankar Lal in detail, who in his cross-examination has categorically stated that he was sitting in the private bus lying idle on the road side and the Corporation bus dashed against it in its rear portion. A.W.2 Sonaram has reiterated the same version. Learned Tribunal has observed that mere acquittal of the driver in criminal case is having no ramification on a claim case where standard of proof is not akin to a criminal trial. Accordingly learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence recorded finding that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus. Thus, the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1 regarding rash and negligent driving by the driver of Corporation bus has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus.

On scrutiny of the impugned award, in my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the injuries suffered by respondent-claimant, coupled with the mental agony suffered by him, the compensation quantified and awarded by learned Tribunal in the matter is just and reasonable. The finding of learned Tribunal is also based on sound appreciation of evidence. That apart, the meager amount involved in the appeal is also a significant fact which has dissuaded this Court to interfere with the impugned award.

Therefore, viewed from any angle, in my opinion, the appeal is bereft of any merit and consequently the same is hereby dismissed.