RSRTC vs Smt. Sudha and Another <BR> Shiv Kumar Birla Vs Devendra Pal Singh and Another

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—Since all the aforesaid six appeals arise out of the judgment and award dt. 13.1.2010 passed by MACT, Bundi, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 5.11.2006 at about 12 O''clock in the night the claimants Shiv Kumar, Shubham Birla, Smt. Sudha Birla and Sachin Birla were coming from Deoli to Bundi in Bus No. RJ01 P 4881. in the mid night of 5th and 6.11.2006, the driver of the bus drove the bus rashly, negligently and at an excessive speed, hit Truck No. HR 38 R 7087 at its rear side to some extent of Basoli Mod, as a result of which the claimants sustained injuries.

Thereafter. First Information Report was lodged. Claim petition NOS. 508/2008, 509/2008, 510/2008 and 511/2008 were filed by Shiv Kumar, Shubham Birla, Smt. Sudha Birla and Sachin Birla respectively. Thereafter, notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award, vide which Rs. 11,400/-; Rs. 5100/-; Rs. 2,06,100/- and Rs. 3,88,900/- have been awarded in favour of claimant(s) in claim petition nos. 508/2008, 509/2008, 510/2008 and 511/2008 respectively.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Insurance company has filed two appeals challenging the quantum of compensation, whereas claimants have filed four appeals for enhancement of quantum of compensation.

Learned counsel for the Insurance company Mr. Virendra Agarwal contended that the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding issue nos. 1 and 4 are absolutely illegal, perverse and contrary to the record. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that accident in question occurred due to the sole negligence of driver of the appellant corporation, though there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of truck as the truck was standing on the road without giving any indication and it was the sole reason for happening the accident. He has further contended that no independent eye witness has been examined by the claimant and as such the claimant has miserably failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the bus and thus, on this count alone, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set-aside He has further contended that mere fact that the driver has been charge sheeted by the Police cannot be said to be the sole ground for holding the appellant liable, because it is settled law that the finding of the Police Authorities is not binding upon the Tribunal and the Tribunal is supposed to give his own reason for holding the driver negligent. Hence, the impugned award needs to be quashed and set-aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation as per well established principle of law applicable in the present case. He has contended that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is abysmally low, hence the impugned award deserves modification and the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence emerging on record, as submitted by both the parties and on perusal of the impugned award, I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned award dt. 13.1.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, all the aforesaid six appeals fail and the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.

Consequent upon the dismissal of appeals, the stay applications, filed herewith, do not survive and they also stand dismissed.