C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889-3890/08 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.             OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3889-3890 of 2008]

Vijay Kumar Kulhar                   ....Appellant

VERSUS

Rajasthan State Road  Transport Corporation ....Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Verma, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied  

with the judgment pronounced by Division Bench of High  

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jaipur Bench in  

D.B.  Civil  Special  Appeal   (Civil)  No.  195  of  2006  

decided on 5.7.2007,  arising out of the Award passed by  

learned Single Judge  on 21.8.2006 in Misc. Appeal No.  

104 of 1995, which in turn arose from the Award dated  

5.12.1994  passed  by  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889-3890/08 2

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), is before us  

challenging the same on variety of grounds.  

3. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for  

the parties.  Perused the record.

4. Basic and material facts for deciding the said  

appeals are mentioned herein below:

5. On 22.8.1983, the bus belonging to Rajasthan  

State  Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'RSRTC')  

was  plying  between  Ramgarh  to  Jhunjhunu.   At  the  

relevant point of time, it was being driven by PW-5  

Ghosh Mohammad.  When the said bus reached  near the  

crusher machine,  after Jhunjhunu Bus Stand, a truck  

bearing registration No. RJP 4120   loaded with stones  

overtook the bus from right hand side and hit it, with  

the result driver of the bus lost its control and it  

dashed against the stone bridge.   

6. Since  the  bus  was  damaged  in  the  said  

accident,  RSRTC  filed  a  claim  petition  against  the  

appellant for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.  

43,078.80 before the Tribunal.

7. On  notices  being  issued  by  the  Tribunal,  

appellant herein, driver and owner of the truck appeared

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889-3890/08 3

and filed written statement denying the allegations made  

in the claim petition filed by RSRTC.  According to him,  

the bus had dashed against  the bridge not because of  

his fault but on account of rash and negligent driving  

of the bus by its driver PW 5 Ghosh Mohammad.

8. On the strength of pleadings of the parties,  

the Tribunal framed six issues.    On appreciation of  

the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to  

the  conclusion that  both drivers,  Ghosh Mohammad  and  

present appellant Vijay Kumar were responsible  for the  

accident.  Thus, Claims Tribunal proceeded to dismiss  

the claim petition.  

9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said  

award of the Tribunal, claimant RSRTC filed Misc. Appeal  

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the High  

Court of Judicature at Rajasthan.

10. Learned Single Judge, after appreciating oral and  

documentary  evidence  available  on  record,  recorded  a  

finding  that  accident  had  taken  place  on  account  of  

rash and negligent driving of the truck by the appellant  

herein, therefore, appellant would be liable to pay the  

amount of compensation.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889-3890/08 4

11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,  

the amount claimed by RSRTC to the tune of Rs. 43078.80  

was reduced to Rs. 40,000/- together  with interest at  

the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of  

filing of the appeal till its payment.

12.    Against  the  said  award  passed  by  the  learned  

Single  Judge,  appellant  preferred  Special  Appeal  (C)  

before the Division Bench of the High Court.  High Court  

considered  the  appeal  on  the  question  of  its  

maintainability in the light of provisions contained in  

Section 100-A  of the Code of Civil Procedure and also  

on the strength of the judgment of this Court in the  

case of Kamal Kumar Datta and another vs. Ruby General  

Hospital Limited and others reported in (2006) 7 SCC 613  

and came to the conclusion that such intra court appeal  

filed by the appellant after 1st July, 2002 would not be  

maintainable  and dismissed the same.  Merit of the  

matter was not at all considered by the Division Bench.  

13. In these appeals, the appellant has challenged  not  

only  the  order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  

awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to respondent but

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889-3890/08 5

also the order passed by Division Bench in the Special  

Appeal (c).

14. Mr. Ravindra Bana, learned counsel appearing for  

the appellant  contended the following grounds :

    One - that Division Bench committed an  error in  dismissing  the  Special  Appeal  (C)  holding  therein  that the same would not be maintainable;      Two -    Learned Single Judge has gravely erred  in awarding compensation to  respondent even though  it  was  not   established  that  accident  was  caused  solely  due  to  rash  and  negligent  driving  of  the  appellant.   

15. Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing  

for  the  respondent  submitted   that  against  the  well  

reasoned award passed by the learned Single Judge as  

also the judgment of Division Bench  holding that appeal  

was not maintainable, no interference is called for and  

appeals deserve to be dismissed.

16. It is pertinent to mention that as far as ground  

no.1 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has  

not  argued  the  same.   Thus,  we  are  not  required  to  

answer the same.

17. P.W.5 Ghosh Mohammad driver of RSRTC Bus had lodged  

a report in the Police Station, Jhunjhunu in respect of

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889-3890/08 6

the accident,  registered  as FIR No. 33/83 for the  

offence  under  Section  279   IPC  against  the  present  

appellant.  Exh. 26 is the said  report.  No doubt, it  

is true that appellant has been acquitted of the said  

offence but nothing turns on his acquittal.

18. After  the  receipt  of  the  report,  police  had  

prepared a spot map  Exh.1 wherein it has been noticed  

that left side of the truck had hit the right side of  

the bus, as a result whereof, the  bus was found in  

hanging position on the left side of the bridge.

19. The mechanical examination report of the truck is  

marked as Exh. 37 in which it has been noticed that the  

mudguard on the left side of the truck was dented and  

there were marks of peeling off and dents on the left  

side  gate of the truck.   

20.     Exh. 38 is the mechanical examination report of  

the bus according to which front portion of the bus was  

damaged and was lying on the floor, the steering control  

was also lying broken and there were damages on the  

right side of the bus.  

21. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clearly made out  

that left side of the truck collided with right side of

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889-3890/08 7

the  bus  and  then  it  reached  the  main  road.   P.W.1  

Mahinder Kumar Sharma conductor of the bus and P.W.5,  

driver of the bus have deposed in one voice that the bus  

was going at a moderate speed whereas the truck came at  

a high speed and dashed violently to the rear right side  

of the bus as a result of which the bus dashed against  

the  bridge  and  broke  the  wall  and  was  lying   in  a  

hanging position.

22. After  carefully  going  through  the  FIR,  the  

inspection reports of both the vehicles and the oral  

evidence available on record, it is clearly made out  

that it was truck driven by the appellant which had come  

in a rash and negligent manner from behind and while  

attempting to overtake the bus  had dashed against it  

causing damage.

23. Once it is held that the accident was caused on  

account of  rash  and negligent driving  of the truck by  

the  appellant, then  obviously the  appellant would  be  

liable to pay the amount of compensation, which has been  

assessed by learned Single Judge at Rs. 40,000/-.   

24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of  

the  opinion   that  appeals  have  no  merits  and  are

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.3889-3890/08 8

accordingly hereby dismissed but  with no orders as to  

cost.

..................... J.

[S.B. SINHA]

..................... J.

[DEEPAK VERMA]                                 

New Delhi. July 27, 2009.