Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the award dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge) (Fast Track) No.3, Jhunjhunu, Head Office, Nawalgrah (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “RSRTC”) has challenged the same before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before this Court : firstly, since the accident between the tractor driven by Sunil (the deceased in this case) and the bus owned by the appellant, was a head on collision, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have presumed that 50% of the negligence lay on the part of Sunil. Thus, it was not justified in holding that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for the said accident. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has erred in concluding that Sunil was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a driver on the tractor as an employee. Jagdish Prasad (A.W.3), in his statement, revealed that that Sunil was his driver. However, as Sunil's driving licence was not produced, thus the learned Tribunal should have presumed that he did not hold a valid licence. Therefore, it is very unlikely that Sunil would have been paid Rs.5,000/- as a salary as a driver. Hence, the learned Tribunal should have taken his salary on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel, perused the record submitted before this Court, and examined the impugned award.

4. A bare perusal of the site plan clearly reveals that while the Tractor was on the correct side of the road, the bus swayed away from the middle of the road, and had moved towards the right side of the road, and crashed against the tractor. Since the bus was legally required to be driven on the left side of the road, obviously, the bus driver was negligent when he crossed over the middle of the road, and collided with the tractor. One of the settled principle of law is that “Man may lie, documents and circumstances do not”. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that 50% of the negligence was that of Sunil. The site plan clearly reveals that while Sunil was driving tractor on correct side of the road, it is the bus which had negligently gone over to the wrong side of the road and had hit the tractor. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is unacceptable.

5. Jagdish Prasad (A.W.3), in his testimony, clearly stated that Sunil was his employee and he was earning Rs.5,000/- as a driver. Therefore, the mere fact that he cannot reveal the exact date of employment, would not dilute the veracity of his testimony. Moreover, merely because the licence was not produced, it does not imply that Sunil did not have a valid licence. Thus, the logic given by the learned counsel for the appellant that the minimum wages should have been applied is unsustainable. Once the employer himself has stated that he was paid Rs.5,000/- to Sunil as a driver, once his testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination, the learned Tribunal was justified in accepting his testimony in toto and in concluding that Sunil was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a driver. It is also imperative to note that although the claimants had claimed that Sunil was earning Rs.5,000/-from agriculture work, the said part of the testimony of the claimant has been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the learned Tribunal has come to a valid conclusion with regard to the income earned by Sunil after thoroughly discussing the evidence on record. Therefore, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned award.

6. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document