IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision attributing sole negligence to the bus driver for the accident resulting in the minor's death, dismissing claims of contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by appellant/non-claimant No.1 viz. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 02.06.2016 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.21/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/- on account of untimely death of Ms. Krishna (deceased), who lost her life in the accident, which took place on 06.10.2012.

2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondents/ claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of their daughter, Ms. Krishna, who was one and half years old at the time of accident. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia stated that on 06.10.2012 the daughter of the claimants along with claimant No.2, Indra, was travelling in Roadways Bus owned by non-claimant No.1 bearing registration number RJ-14-PB-0566. The aforesaid Bus was being plied by its driver i.e. non-claimant No.2 rashly and negligently and when the said Bus was going from Fuliyakallan to Shahpura, the driver of the said Bus lost his control over the Bus and near Arniya Ghoda, the Bus turned turtle. As a result of which, the claimants’ daughter fell into ‘Nala’ and she died due to drowning. The claimants thus filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- on account of death of their daughter.

3. On receipt of the summons, on behalf of appellant/non-claimant No.1, reply to claim petition was filed while refuting the claim laid therein. It was stated that there was no fault on the part of driver of the offending Bus and the deceased due to negligence of her mother i.e. claimant No.2. It was thus stated and prayed that no liability could have been fastened upon the non-claimant. Despite service of the summons upon the non-claimant No.2/driver, nobody appeared on his behalf and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against him on 23.08.2013.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination. In support of their claim, the claimant No.1 examined himself as AW.1 and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants, no evidence was led.

5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- in favour of claimants along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. from 31.01.2013. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally.

6. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.09.2016 and an interim order was also passed to the effect that if the appellant Corporation deposits a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- of the award amount alongwith interest, after taking into consideration any amount deposited under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within a period of four weeks, the rest of the award was stayed. The amount when deposited, was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award. Later on, while confirming the interim order, the stay application was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.01.2017.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that while passing the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has not examined the material on record in its entirety and objectivity. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while deciding the Issue No.1 the learned Tribunal has erred on facts and law and erroneously held that the driver of the offending Bus was plying the Bus rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding