Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 2358
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dinesh Maheshwari
Depot Manager, RSRTC - Appellant
Versus
Shorabh Trivedi - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 828 of 2000
Decided On : 09/20/2006
Mr. N.K. Rastogi, Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, Mr. Mahesh Thanvi with Mr. Amra Ram Rajpurohit, Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, for the Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a head-on collision, the speed of the vehicles alone does not determine fault; rash driving is the key factor. Both drivers can be held equally responsible unless specific facts indicate otherwise.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents - Responsibility towards accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appeals related to a head-on collision between two buses, resulting in injuries and the death of one driver. The claimants sought compensation, attributing the accident to the negligence of both bus drivers. The Tribunal found both drivers equally responsible and awarded compensation accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both bus drivers, leading to injuries and the driver's death. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that both drivers were equally responsible for the accident.
Issues: The main issue was the responsibility towards the accident, with the claimants alleging negligence on the part of both bus drivers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the speed of the vehicles was only one of the relevant factors and that rash driving, not just speed, was the culprit. It emphasized that in a head-on collision, both drivers could be equally responsible unless specific facts indicated otherwise.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision that both drivers were equally responsible for the accident.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-These five appeals preferred against the common award dated 26.02.1999 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara relate to the same accident and involve a single common question regarding responsibility towards accident; hence were heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common Judgment .
2. The accident in question occurred on 21.04.1994 at about 8.30 a.m. on Udaipur-Banswara Road on a curve near Lasada village pond in head-on collision of two buses; one bearing registration No. RJ14 P 2438 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) driven by late Nandkishore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘roadways bus’) running from Udaipur to Banswara; and the other one coming from opposite direction bearing registration No. RJ12 P 0207 belonging to Shivlal, driven by Jeevan and insured with United India Insurance Co Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘private bus’). As a result of the accident some of the occupants of the buses sustained injuries and the driver of the roadways bus succumbed to the injuries
3. Separate Claim Applications were submitted seeking compensation for the loss caused by the accident. While Hurma (occupant of private bus), Smt. Trupti, Roop Lal and Master Saurabh Trivedi (occupants of roadways bus) claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them due to the injuries sustained in the accident against the person related with both the buses; on the other hand Smt. Manohari Devi and Others, wife and children of the deceased driver of the roadways bus Nandkishore, claimed compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the private bus. The injured claimants alleged the responsibility of both the drivers towards accident whereas the dependents of the deceased roadways bus driver alleged that the accident occurred due to the fault of the private bus driver. The responsibility towards accident being the only question involved in these appeals, the pleadings taken by the claimants in that regard could be usefully noticed.
4. The claimant Hurma (Claim Case No. 182/1994) attributed the accident to rash driving by both the bus drivers thus :
5. The claimant Smt. Trupti (Claim Case No. 139/1994) alleged in her claim application that the collision occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the private bus and that the roadways driver was also negligent thus :
6. Similar are the averments in the claim application filed on behalf of Saurabh, the minor son of Smt. Trupti, (Claim Case No. 150/1994) by his father thus :-
7. The claimant Roop Lal (Claim Case No. 147/1994) again alleged in his claim application that the collision occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the private bus and that the roadways driver was also negligent thus :
8. The claimants Smt. Manohari Devi & Ors. (Claim Case No. 157/1994 alleged that the deceased Nandkishore was driving the roadways bus at a slow speed on its side but the private bus driver brought his vehicle at a high speed negligently and forcefully hit the roadways bus; and the roadways bus driver died after the accident. According to these claimants :-
9. The non-applicant insurer of the private bus contested all the claim applications with the submissions, inter alia, that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the roadways bus; whereas RSRTC contested the claim applications of the injured claimants with the submissions that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the private bus.
10. The Tribunal framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in these five claim cases :-
11. In consolidated trial, on the part of the claimants were examined the claimant Hurma as AW-1, the claimant Smt. Trupti Devi as AW-2, father of the claimant Saurabh, Hemant Kumar as AW-3, the claimant Roop Lal as AW-4, the claimant Smt. Manohari Devi as AW-5 and conductor of the roadways bus Meghraj as AW-6. The
