High CourtsSingle Bench

RSRTC vs Vimla and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 11 March 2015 · Citation: (2015) 3 RLW 2616

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.C. Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1408 of 2012, Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1130 of 2012 and Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2501 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 449 words

M.C. Sharma, J—Since both these appeals relate to one incident and arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal with regard to death of Charan Singh in a road accident, which is said to have taken place on 4.6.2009. Thereafter notices were issued; reply was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 28.2.2012, decreeing an amount of Rs. 5,09,000/- as compensation in favour of claimants.

2.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal these two appeals have been filed: One by RSRTC and another by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

3.

Learned counsel for the RSRTC has contended that the Tribunal has committed error while passing the award. He has further contended that a perusal of the site plan prepared by the police during investigation shows the position of the bus and tractor and the place where they collided, but the learned tribunal has ignored this aspect of the matter. Even if the accident is held to be proved, then it is a case of contributory negligence, but the Tribunal held only the RSRTC liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal should be quashed and set-aside.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the deceased. He has further contended that the Tribunal while computing the amount, has not applied proper multiplier. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

6.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter ad-longum and rightly decided all the issues. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award, which are reproduced as under:

7.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to take a different view, than that of the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, both the aforesaid appeals filed by the RSRTC as well as the appeal filed by the claimants, being without any substance, are hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Stay application(s) also stand dismissed accordingly.