High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 12 RAJ CK 0061

R.S.R.T.C. and Another vs Manorma Devi and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 9 December 2004 · Citation: (2005) 1 ACC 798

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dalip Singh, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 258 words

Dalip Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and its Depot Manager against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tonk dated 27.5.1994 in Claim Case No. 12/1988.

2.

The appellants Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in this appeal have challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the negligence of driver Mohan Lai, respondent No. 7. It has been noticed in the award passed by the learned Tribunal immediately after the issues have been reproduced on page 4 of the certified copy of the judgment of learned Tribunal, that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, appellants herein, who were the non-claimant before the learned Tribunal, did not lead any evidence. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when no evidence has been led by the appellants before the learned Tribunal, and they failed to discharge the burden, there appears to be no justification for accepting the argument that learned Tribunal has erred in holding that driver of the bus belonging to the appellants was not negligent and thus this finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is erroneous. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is consequently rejected. A detailed judgment pertaining to the same accident has been given today while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 816/ 1994 filed by the claimants. In the light of the aforesaid judgment this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

3.

There shall be no order as to costs.