Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Union of India and Others

Vineet Kothari, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/non-claimant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ''RSRTC'') aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 12.05.2000 of the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh, (Tribunal) allowing the claim petition filed by the first respondent/claimant being Claim Case No. 207/1995-Union of India through Commanding Officer Lt. Col. A.K. Singh, L.T. C.O. Koy A.S.C. (TKTYPY) C/o 56 APO v. R.S.R.T.C. and Anr. under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,71,258/- in favour of first respondent/claimant for the alleged loss of property viz. damage caused to their Tatra Truck No. 86E 7894W, which with an accident took place on 30.11.1994 with the Bus of non-claimant- RSRTC being Bus No. RJ-14-P-1474 at about 03.15 PM, in the after-noon, at Nava Bye-pass on Suratgarh-Hanumangh highway.

The brief facts of the said accident are like this. The said Tatra Truck was coming from Sangariya to Hanumangarh side having its destination at Suratgarh and it took right turn on the said Nava Bye-pass, whereas the RSRTC''s Bus, coming from opposite side, which was plied by its driver (respondent No. 2 herein) hit the said truck on the front and the damage was caused to the said military vehicle. An FIR of the said accident was registered, in which the investigating agency after investigation, filed Challan against the driver of the RSRTC''s Bus i.e. against Ajayab Singh (driver/respondent No. 2) for the rash and negligent driving. The compensation was claimed to the tune of Rs. 5,71,25.38 mainly on account of the fact that the said Tatra truck was re-classified from Class III to Class VI of the Vehicles maintained by the claimant, and upon down grading of the said vehicle the value went down from Rs. 8,16,118/- to Rs. 2,44,868/-, and the difference of Rs. 5,71,258.38 was thus claimed as damages in terms of guidelines laid down for valuation AO No. 37/76 dated 09.03.1988 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

The learned Tribunal has recorded the following findings while awarding the compensation in favour of claimant/first respondent:--

The appellant-RSRTC aggrieved by the said judgment has filed the present appeal before this Court on 15.12.2000. While admitting the present misc. appeal vide order dated 12.09.2001 a coordinate bench of this Court granted interim order staying the execution of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

Mr. M.P. Goswami appearing on behalf of Mr. Anil Bachhawat, learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has submitted that from the site map (Ex. A/3) prepared by the investigating officer of the police department, clearly shows that said Tatra vehicle took a sudden right turn on Nava bye-pass and while the Bus coming from the opposite side, plied by its driver, who although tried to stop the said bus to prevent the head on collision, but unfortunately could not fully brake the speed and met with said accident and damage was caused to both RSRTC''s bus as well as Tatra Truck. He also submitted that the actual damage as caused to the Tatra vehicle has not been evaluated by the concerned authorities, who appeared before the learned Tribunal, however, on the basis of estimation of the decrease in the value by putting the said Tatra vehicle from Class-III to Class-VI, as per the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India AO 37/76 dated 09.03.1988, the said entire difference of Rs. 5,71,258.38, has been awarded, whereas the actual damage/repair cost caused was much less. He also submitted that vehicle of the Military was insured with the insurance company but that was neither arrayed as non-applicant to the claim petition, nor the claimant produced any proof in regard to claiming compensation from the insurance company also.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant, Mr. Piyush Bhandari on behalf of Mr. Ravi Bhansali, submitted that rash and negligent driving was on the part of the RSRTC''s driver, Ajayab Singh and the Tatra Truck being a very heavy vehicle, which has a left hand steering, was taking the route through Nava bye-pass and it was duty of the driver of RSRTC Bus to stop the said bus allowing the said heavy and long vehicle to take turn on the side of bye-pass and allow it to pass first. He further submitted said Tatra vehicle already turned towards the said bye-pass and only one Tatra vehicle was also at its back side. He submitted that the AW.3, namely, Lal Babu, who was in that second back side Tatra Truck, in his statement has clearly stated that it was the driver of the RSRTC Bus, who was plying the Bus rashly and negligently. He further submitted that military trucks are not insured with any private or public insurance company and, therefore, there was no question of claiming any compensation for the said damage from the insurance company, and thus the entire value of loss or damage on account of re-classification of the vehicle, deserves to be compensated.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and award and also perused the record including the site map.

A perusal of the site map (Ex. A/3) would clearly reveal that it is a case of contributory negligence of both the drivers of vehicles involved in the said accident. Both the vehicles were admittedly coming from opposite side and the said Military vehicle (Tatra Truck) being a heavy vehicle was obviously required to be driven at slow speed. Looking the time of the accident at 03.15 PM, during the day, it cannot be assumed that the driver of the Tatra vehicle could not see the RSRTC Bus coming from opposite side and without taking adequate care and caution, still took right turn on the Nava bye-pass. The position of the said vehicle as per the site map, shows its position on the extreme right corner on the said turn of road, whereas in normal course the said truck could not have taken a right hand turn on the extreme right side of the road. It is equally true that RSRTC Bus driver also ought to have applied the breaks and stopped his bus allowing the Tatra vehicle to pass through, although from the statement of the driver, it appears that he tried to stop the vehicle but the speed could not be reduced to a halt position and, therefore, both the vehicles collided. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that drivers of both the vehicles have to be held equally responsible for causing of that accident by their rash and negligent driving and therefore, the compensation for the damage caused to the property, namely, Tatra vehicle has to be borne by both the owners and drivers of the vehicles in equal half proportion.

As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court is of the further opinion that reimbursement of the entire claim of Rs. 5,71,258/- cannot be made as it is merely a difference of valuation estimated as per the Guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, for such classification of vehicle, and not the actual expenses incurred by the claimant- organization for repairing of the said Tatra vehicle consequent to the said accident. There is no evidence on record about the amount actually so spent by the claimant Military organization for putting the vehicle in order again worthy of use. This re-classification and reduction in the valuation cannot be the yardstick for complete reimbursement by the appellant-RSRTC, which is also another Government organization or a public body. Therefore, as far as amount of compensation is concerned, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for re-determining the amount of compensation on the basis of actual expenses incurred by the claimant/first respondent for putting the vehicle in order again along with the proof of the same so that amount of such compensation so determined, may be equally divided as aforesaid and to the extent of its half only the appellant- RSRTC may be required to pay the same to the claimant/first respondent. The said exercise may be undertaken by the learned Tribunal within a period of six months from today, and the concerned parties may appear before the learned Tribunal in the first instance on Monday, 03.08.2015. The claimant is also expected to produce oral as well as documentary evidence for such actual expenses incurred by them for repairing of the said Tatra vehicle before the learned Tribunal, which subject to cross-examination by the witnesses of the appellant- RSRTC, appropriate award in this regard may be passed by the learned Tribunal.

With the aforesaid limited purpose, the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal. The appeal of the appellant-RSRTC, is disposed of, accordingly in the aforesaid terms. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Tribunal forthwith.