General Manager B/B Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhir Kumar Rai And Others











 
   






















!

"!

# $%
 &$'
()('
*+ ,
-
*
.$

/$
0$/$ !!!//%% 1$

-2, $
324$
*
 
,$

!!!*

 
 
 
 
  
  5$ $!
4 
3 ,'
6
$
,
//%% !
 
 

  

 ""# !

.,


//% 
2 $
-

,
8 

$   

%9


9

$ %

&
,
//%!
$
,
$


4 

,
//%  '
,
4

%%:
 
%9


9

$ %

&
,
//%

  !



$ ""# !

.,
/$ 
//%
,
;
 %
;9
,
//%% # $%  &$'
()('
*+ ,
-
*
.$

/$
0$/$ '
:

$

,  

&
6, %
&


,
:$

!!


/



,
% /
2 $
-


,
$
 
0%
.$ ;2 %'

#2$2&$4
$
,$'
<,
.$ ;2 %<'
:,$

'
,
8!
.$ ;2 %
%%:
, % 4
/
 %
;9
,
% 4
 
,%
,
//%% 
% ;%

/9
, 4/



 
  


 .,
 

% 4

;$6 9
$


%

/$ 
% / '

,

,
%%
9
!!

!

!

'
-4!
#
*

'

,$

$
;

&
$$$


 '
:
:

&
$
4
 69  
(2
- 
$
(

%
%96$
( % /2$


$ 
#2$2&$4
=$9 
  
;2
!

5!'

;2
;$

&
$&

$
>!
*?5" 
$
,$  

&
6, %
;

&
$ 6


 
/


$ ,
 
&% & 4

$
4
 
, 
#
*

!
2

;6
4 
%%

,  
2$
42% /%
&$ 62

+2$ !
-,
:
@

# &$4 = / %
( % /2$


$ 
#2$2&$4!
8$
 ,
:
4 

0 % = / %
-$
#2$2&$4!
-2;

A2 %9'
,
:
$$$

-$+2 & = / %
>:
%, '
:,$
2$

&
$4 
,
224;

,

+2$

2$
;9
,$

,
;6
4 
 !
.,
$ 6$

 

& 6, %
;  
,

6, %

,
/
 
%
:9!
*&$

&
,  

A2 '

$

%
 
;$

&
B*
>! 

"!

!

'

$
-

"'

B50
:
$&

$

5% 
-
( % /2$ 

$ 
#2$2&$4'
&


,
$ 6$

 

&
6, %
;$

& $&

$
>!
*?5" !
C/  

,
% 4
/ '
//%% 
//$
    
,
% 4
/
;9
 %

&
:$ 
$/%9


&
,
24
 4/

 ) !

!

$4
,
/%

&

,
/$ '
,
.$ ;2 %
$4
, %%:

&

2 

1. Whether on 16.09.2023 at about 04:00 P.M. near 'Binola Flyover, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Gurugram an accident had taken place, and the above mentioned accident was an

 
outcome of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ.14PD.7286, by the respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether in the above mentioned accident injuries were suffered by Smt. Geeta Rani resulting into her death and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If yes, the quantum thereof? OPP

$
@

&




$
,
/%

&
 
,
6 
$$'
,
%$ 
.$ ;2 %
:$
4/



,
% 4 '

:, %
,%

&
,
//%% 
% ;%

/9
,
4/

 !
= '
, /$ 
//%!

 

 
 




 !
8$ 
2

%
$
,
//%% )# $%
 &$'
()('

*+ ,
-
*
.$

/$
0$/$
  
,
,
%$  .$ ;2 %
,
:$ &%9
,%
,
,
 

A2
@
/%
2
 $ ,
 
&% & 
$

&

$ 6$
, $
-

&,
$ 
>!

'

.,$$'
,
/$9
,
,
/$ 
//%
;
%%:
 
:$


!!


;



!

"!

B
,6
,$
%$ 
2

%
$
,
//%% 
 
/$2 
, :,%
$$

,
 !

!

.,
$%6 
/$

,
:$

$/$2

2 $ "13. Onus to prove this issue is on the claimants. In support of their claim, the claimant No.1 Sudhir Kumar Rai himself appeared as his own witness as PW.1. The PW.1 tendered in his evidence duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW.1/A, wherein he deposed about the manner of accident. The PW.1 deposed that the reason behind the accident in question was the rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent


No.1. However during the course of his cross.examination the PW.1 admitted that he had Σ not witnessed the accident in question and the registration number of offending vehicle was told to him by the police.

14. The copy of report under section.173(2) Cr.P.C. shows that the FIR pertaining to the accident in question was registered on next day of the accident on the complaint of Alok Kumar, brother.in.law of the deceased, in which registration number of offending vehicle was recorded. The offending vehicle was recovered by the police from the place of accident itself. During investigation, respondent No.1 Mahendra Singh was arrested and offending bus was also taken into possession by police from the place of accident itself. After completion of necessary steps of investigation, final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., Ex.R.2, was submitted before learned Area Magistrate for trial of respondent No.1 Mahender.

15. The claimants have also tendered documents as detailed above in para No.8 of Award. A perusal of copy of final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., Ex.R.2, placed on record by the respondents themselves, shows that FIR No.346 dated 17.09.2023, under Sections 279/304.A IPC was registered against driver of offending vehicle bearing registration No. RJ. 14PD.7286 for causing the accident in question in which Smt. Geeta Rani suffered injuries and succumbed to those injuries and after thorough investigation, respondent No.1 was sent to

 
face trial before competent court.

16. To rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants the respondent No.1 Mahendra Singh himself has appeared in the witness.box as RW.1 and tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.RW.1/A, wherein he deposed that no accident was caused by him while plying bus No. RJ.14PD.7286 on 16.09.2023. He further deposed that police has planted the bus of RSRTC illegally and unlawfully and the accident in question was caused by some other vehicle. However during the course of his cross.examination the RW.1 testified that he had not moved any application before higher police police) authorities regarding false plantation of his vehicle. The RW.1 admitted that the criminal case is pending against him.

17. With regard to above testimony of respondents' witness it is pertinent to note that except bare denial of the claim of claimants, the respondents have not produced any independent cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the stand of the claimants with regard to accident in question is false and the accident in question was not caused by the respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash & negligent manner. The plea taken by respondents that respondent No.] has been falsely implicated in this case and the accident in question did not take place due to his rash and negligent driving is not tenable, because as per record the registration of offending vehicle had been mentioned in the FIR itself, which


was recorded on the next day of accident and the offending vehicle was seized by the police from the place of accident itself. Thereafter a notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act was served upon the respondent No.2 who had disclosed that on the date of accident the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle. Investigating agency after thorough investigation arrested respondent No.1 Mahender being driver of offending vehicle and found him rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle and submitted final report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.R.2 before the learned Area Magistrate.

18. There is also no evidence on the file that respondent No.1 ever, filed any representation before higher authorities against alleged false implication of respondent No.1 and offending vehicle in the instant case and this silence for such a long period also goes against him. Admittedly, no such complaint has ever been filed. The above said silence on the part of respondent No.1 speaks in volumes about the lack of credibility of his plea, with regard to denial of his involvement in the accident in question. As investigating officer who in discharge of his official duty filed report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. regarding culpability of respondent No.1 in this accident had proved on file that accident in question occurred due to his rash & negligence. So, for the purpose of this enquiry regarding deciding claim of compensation, in view of the

"
provisions of section.114 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 a presumption is raised that the accident in question had taken place due to rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1.

19. In this regard in Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhey Shyam and others, 1993(2) PLR 109, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that if the FIR is registered against the driver, it is prima facie safe to conclude that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. 20. In the case titled as Bimla Devi & others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others, (2009) 13 SC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the issue of negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and that a holistic view is to be taken. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and therefore, strict rules of evidence should not be applicable.

21. In the case titled as Kusum Lata and others Vs. Parkash and others, 2011(2) RCR 379, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that in a case under motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The court must keep the distinction in mind. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt


could not have been applied.

22. The aforesaid oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants is thoroughly consistent and to impeach the credibility of above mentioned evidence no cogent & convincing evidence, qua this issue, has been adduced by the respondents in rebuttal there is no reason to disbelieve the version put forward by the claimants on this aspect. So, it is established on record that respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No. RJ.14PD.7286, which caused the accident in question.

23. Thus, in view of above discussion, it is established on file that respondent No.1 was rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle and caused the accident in question. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the claimants." !


/$2 %

,
4/2& 
:$
$6%
,
,
%$  .$ ;2 %
,
$ &,%9
//$ 
,
6 

$$'
;,
$%
  24 $9'
 
$$ 6


+2 
 
%&%%9
2 
 %2

,
,  

A2
2$$
2

$ ,
 
&% & 
$

&

,  

&
6, %
;9
$ 
>!

'
,
$ 6$, $
-

&,!

 .,
B*
DE!
5 '
:, ,
:
%&
/$4/%9

,
6$9
E 9

,
 '
/  %%9
4

,
$&

$ 24;$

,  

&
;2 !
.,
 %

&

,
B*
 , 
$ ;

% 9
 
$%
,

 9
 
6$ 9

,

 
$/$

,
/% !
.,

, ,
 

&
6, %
: F
;9
,
/% 
$4
,
/

2$$ 


2$,$
$$;$
,
A2 

6 $$
;9
,
% 4 !

2$,$4$'
,


%
/% 
$/$
2 $
-
"

 0$!5!0!
DE!
* '
 %
$

,$2&,

6 & '
A2$%9
$ ;2

$ ,
 
&% & 
$

&

$ 
>!

$ 6$
, $
-

&,'

:, ,
%

$ 
>!

;

&
,$&
,
 



$ %'

2$,$
$

$

&
,
 %2


2%/;

% 9!

 !

$6$'
,
4,

%

/
$/$
DE!
*"   $4
,
,
;2

A2
:



6%6

,
 !
., 4$4
$/$
DE!
*'
 2

-$+2 &
= / %'
>:
%,

!

!

'
$$
,
2 

,

G$

$;$%
4& 

A2 

;%2 
$
$24

,
,'H
:

,
%%

+2$
;

&
  4$4!
.,

4 %
6 
 $4%9
 ;%

,
,
,
 

224;


+2$ 




$


 '
2$,$ $$;$

&
,
 

,
% 4  !

B

$ 
%:
,
/$

&
2 $
,
$
1, %

$

244$9

2$
 
$
&6$ 
;9
,
/$

 /%

/$/ $ 
 /$;;

% '

,
$ $
 $

/$
;9 
$ ;%
2;


$A2 $

$

%
$ % !
*$ 

,

&

;
4

?2&4 
/E
2$

  

             '
,
$%6 
E$

4

$/$2

2 $ "22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be

 
mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non.examination of some best eye witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in 2%


$ 
6!
?A2 4
I6 $ 0$2F wherein this Court reiterated that:

"7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pickup van by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.(Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] )" (emphasis supplied) !

6 :

,
;6


2

 
,
%
%&% /$/


%:'


6 
,
,
%$ 
.$ ;2 %
,
$$ 6






&
$
/$/$
6%2

%%
$%6 

 
6 

$$!

.,




&

,
8!
.$ ;2 %
$
; 
 2 
+2  %
$

&
  

:$$ 
 9

$$ 
;9
,

02$!

 0

A2 %9
/$ 
//%




;

&
6 

 4$ !

5 

&
//% 

'

 9'
 



!

"!%""#  
  Yogesh













 
&'()'(*
+,(-./012*(-+30(4

(+23 &'()'(*
*(,3*)-56(

(+23