AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Mehta, J
I.A.No.01/2022:
For the reasons stated and after hearing learned rival counsel, delay of 42 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Appeal is treated to be filed in limitation.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1437/2020:
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The appeal in hands arise out of the judgment and award dated 05.03.2020, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), whereby, Claim Case No.281/2019 has been allowed and the appellant (RSRTC) has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,58,000/- to the respondent No.1 to 3 as compensation on account of death of one Shankarlal.
The facts in brief are that on 30.08.2018, the deceased Shankarlal was undertaking the travel in a bus belonging to the present appellant bearing registration No. RJ-27-PA-2979.
It was the case set up by the claimants that before the deceased could properly get off the bus, the driver of the bus started the bus, due to which the rear side tyre of the bus ran over him resulting in his death on the spot.
Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased himself was negligent and responsible in his death, because he should not have attempted to get off while the bus was still in motion.
It was alternatively argued that the amount of compensation should have been reduced in proportion to the negligence of the deceased.
That amount of compensation was also challenged on quantum.
Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand argued that the claimants have proved/established beyond doubt that negligence was of the driver of the bus, who did not allow the deceased to properly get off the bus and settle and moved the bus carelessly.
It was argued by Mr. Kawadia that the deceased got off the bus on toll naka, where the bus took a brief halt and therefore, the deceased cannot be said to have been negligent.
It was argued that appellants contention regarding income is unsustainable, as the award amount is based on the income tax return of the deceased filed by the claimants.
Heard learned counsel and perused the record.
So far as the alleged negligence of the deceased is concerned, this Court is of the view that as the bus had halted at toll naka and the driver/conductor of the bus allowed the deceased to disembark, it was a duty of the driver to ensure that the passenger has safely settled. In the facts of the present case, the deceased cannot be said to have been negligent, contributively, let alone completely.
It was not case set up by the appellant (RSRTC) that the deceased got off the bus after opening the door of the bus himself. It was the responsibility of the driver and conductor to ensure that the passenger properly got off the bus and settled, before undertaking the ongoing journey.
In view of the above and considering the evidence produced on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal so far as negligence of the deceased is concerned.
Adverting to Mr. Purohit’s contention about the amount awarded, this Court is of the view that income arrived at by the driver is best on documentary evidence, namely, the income tax return of the deceased. Such evidence cannot be brushed aside and the award cannot be said to be contrary to facts and law.
There is no merit and substance in the present appeal, for which it is hereby dismissed.
The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.