RSRTC Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A serious accident occurred in the dead of the night of 18-22002, causing death of twelve persons and injuring three persons. An award dated 19-8-2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal jhunjhunu (`the Tribunal' for short) has brought 15 appeals before this court. Jhunjhunu (`the Tribunal' for short) has brought 15 appeals before this court.

(2.) SINCE five of these appeals, namely S. B. Civil Misc. Appeals no. 3859/2006, 3847/2006, 3856/2006, 3860/2006, and 3854/2006 raise identical questions regarding negligence on the part of the vehicles involved in accident, and on the point of non-joinder of the owner of the jeep and the Insurance company of the jeep. Therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 18-2-2002 around fifteen persons were travelling in a Marshal jeep, bearing registration no. HR-20f/ 2370, towards Salasar. Around eight kilometers after jhunjhunu and about twenty seven kilometers from police station nawalgarh, around 11. 30 at night the said Marshal jeep collided with a bus belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (`the Corporation' for short ). The accident was so severe that out of fifteen passengers, eight passengers died on the spot, and seven passengers were referred to the Hospital. Out of those seven passengers, four passengers died during the course of treatment. Only three passengers survived their injuries. Since twelve passengers had expired, their dependants filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. Three injured passengers also filed claim petitions before the Tribunal. All the claim petitions were consolidated and were decided by a common award dated 19-8-2006. According to the learned Tribunal the accident was caused solely due to negligence of the bus driver, Amar Singh. Therefore, the learned tribunal imposed liability for payment of compensation on the corporation, and the driver, jointly and severally. The learned tribunal absolved the driver of the marshal jeep of any negligence. Therefore, it did not impose any liability on the Insurance company of the jeep, namely National Insurance Company for payment of the compensation amount. passengers had expired, their dependants filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. Three injured passengers also filed claim petitions before the Tribunal. All the claim petitions were consolidated and were decided by a common award dated 19-8-2006. According to the learned Tribunal the accident was caused solely due to negligence of the bus driver, Amar Singh. Therefore, the learned tribunal imposed liability for payment of compensation on the corporation, and the driver, jointly and severally. The learned tribunal absolved the driver of the marshal jeep of any negligence. Therefore, it did not impose any liability on the Insurance company of the jeep, namely National Insurance Company for payment of the compensation amount. Mr. Virendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the Corporation, has vehemently argued that there are contradictions between the ocular evidence and documentary evidence produced by the claimants. The witnesses have claimed that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it is the bus which collided with the jeep. But, both the site plan (Ex. 432) as well as the photographs (Exs. 411, 413, 415 and 416), taken after the accident, clearly prove that the driver of the jeep was solely negligent in driving the jeep. The site-plan clearly shows that the bus was on its correct side of the road. The site-plan further reveals that it is the jeep that had deviated from its correct side of the road and had reached the middle of the road. Therefore, the negligence lay solely on the part of jeep driver and not on the part of bus driver. He has further contended that the photographs also reveal that the jeep was being driven in middle of the road when it dashed against the bus. Therefore, the documentary evidence belies the testimony of the witnesses. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the Corporation, the impugned award is based on conjectures and surmises. The learned Tribunal has presumed that larger vehicle try to bully a smaller vehicle. Therefore, the bus driver must have tried to force the jeep to get off from the road and to go into the Kachcha area. This presumption has induced the learned tribunal to conclude that the negligence lay on the part of the bus driver and not on the part of the jeep driver. Moreover, the learned counsel has questioned the finding of learned Tribunal where the learned Tribunal has dealt with width of the road, the width of the bus and that of the jeep. According to learned counsel, the learned tribunal has conjured up the fine details of the accident, which were not supported by any evidence. Furthermore, learned Tribunal has failed to syncronise the site-plan and the photographs produced by the claimants. Therefore, the award suffers from mis-appreciation of evidence--the evidence which was available on record. not supported by any evidence. Furthermore, learned Tribunal has failed to syncronise the site-plan and the photographs produced by the claimants. Therefore, the award suffers from mis-appreciation of evidence--the evidence which was available on record.