Liability of RSRTC for rash and negligent driving, and the justness of the interest awarded based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

1. The above mentioned appeals as well as cross objections shall stand decided by this common order as they arise out of the common accident.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The CMA Nos. 363/2002 and 438/2002 have been preferred by the RSRTC and the cross objections bearing Nos. 24/2003 & 04/2003 respectively have been filed on behalf of respondents against the judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner dated 12.12.2001 passed in Claim Case Nos. 22/2000 and 29/2000 respectively.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals and cross objections are that on 17.04.1999, the Tata Sumo Jeep having registration No. RJ-07-C-3242 was being driven by its driver Roshan AN. While travelling from Jodhpur to Bikaner, the said jeep collided with Roadways bus of the appellant-RSRTC bearing registration No. RJ-10-P-1430 which was coming from the opposite direction. In the accident, the driver of the Sumo vehicle Roshan AN died and Raghunath Singh who was travelling in the Tata Sumo sustained injuries.

5. In the circumstances, two separate claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal. One by the legal representatives of Roshan AN, claiming compensation on account of his death in the accident which occurred on 17.04.1999 and another by Raghunath Singh claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

6. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, patly allowed the claim petitions. In the claim petition preferred by Raghunath Singh, an amount of Rs.2,90,200/- was awarded for the injuries sustained by him whereas an amount of Rs. 5,65,000/- was awarded to the LRs of Roshan AN on account of his death in the said accident.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC vehemently submitted that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 4 are erroneous on the face of it. He submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly held the appellant-RSRTC responsible for the rash and negligent driving of the bus in the present case. He submits that even as per the site plan prepared by the Police, the place of accident is shown as the center of the road which is marked as 'X'. He further submits that in the statement of the Conductor of the bus recorded before the Tribunal, it was stated that the bus was being driven on the correct side. On the strength of the site plan prepared by the Police, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon this Court that at least the factor of contributory negligence should have been taken into consideration while awarding the compensation and that the driver of the bus alone cannot be held responsible for the accident in the present case. He further submits that the learned Tribunal erred while recording the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 4 against the appellants and the same are required to be modified. Learned counsel also submits that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is to the tune of 9% which is on the higher side and, therefore, he prays that the interest may be reduced suitably.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants while supporting the findings of the Tribunal emphatically submitted that in view of the statement of the injured Raghunath Singh and Devprakash, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not required to be interfered with. He submitted that even as per the site plan prepared by the Police, the Tata Sumo vehicle in which the injured and the deceased were travelling, is shown on the left side of the road at the time of accident which clearly depicts the fact that Tata Sumo was being driven on its correct side. He has submitted that there is no reason for disbelieving the statement of Raghunath Singh and Devprakash who we