1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4975/2009 R.S.R.T.C. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Kumari Kavita & Anr. Dated : 12.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. V.S. Yadav, for the appellants. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 12th August, 2009 whereby, the Accident Claim Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Khetari decreed an amount of Rs. 1,62,600/- as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent no.1 and against the appellants. 2. The nub of the appellant's story is that- On 15th September, 2006, the claimant Kumari Kavita was driving in a Bus No. RJ-22P-1164 owned by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The Bus stopped at bus stand Balaji Thuna. When the claimant Kavita was in the process of alighting from the Bus and her one leg was on the footrest of the Bus and the other one in the air but towards the road, then the Bus driver suddenly moved the Bus and she fell down. The Bus driver drove the Bus rashly and negligently and dragged the claimant Kavita for a distance of about 15-20 feet, as a result of which she sustained injuries on her head, legs and other parts of the body. With 2 regard to this accident, an FIR came to be lodged at police station Singhana and police, after completion of investigation, sent the driver to trial for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 3. The claimant filed claim petition for Rs. 4,47,000/- under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khetari. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant material available on record including the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that the driver of the Bus did not cause any accident. It was the negligence of the claimant, who jumped out of the moving Bus and fell down on the road. In fact, she sustained the injuries on her person because of her negligence only. Learned counsel has further contended that for argument's sake, it is believed that there was negligence on the part of Bus driver also, then it was the case of contributory negligence, and in that event, the appellant was liable for only 50% of the compensation amount. Learned counsel also contended that the amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal on higher side, which needs to be set aside. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned award, it is noticed that at bus stand Balaji Thuna, when the driver stopped the Bus, the passengers were alighting from it. It has emerged in the statements of AW-1 Kavita, AW-2 Kashiram and AW- 3 3 Leela Ram that before the claimant Kavita was to alight from the Bus, 2-3 passengers had already come down and when the claimant Kavita was in the process of alighting, her one foot was on the footrest of the Bus and another was towards road and then without ascertaining the fact that all the passengers had alighten, the bus driver rashly and negligently moved the Bus, as a result of which Kavita fell down on the road and the Bus dragged her to about 15-16 feet. This fact is proved by the evidence of these three witnesses. Albeit, the appellant has produced one NAW-1 Sugnaram but this evidence could not succeed in rebutting the evidence of the claimant-respondent. The claimant-respondent Kavita is found to have sustained 10% permanent disability. She was 17 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has taken Rs. 15,000/- per annum as notional income prescribed for non-earning persons under II Schedule of the Act. The record reveals that the claimant Kavita got a continued treatment and she submitted the medical bills of Rs. 24,029/- in evidence. After taking into consideration all these factors, learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 1,62,600/- in favour of the claimant-respondent no.1. 7. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the fact that bus driver did not cause any accident and in alternate, that the claimant-respondent Kavita was also negligent in alighting from the Bus and the RSRTC was liable only for 50% of compensation, is found totally devoid of any force. Learned counsel has reiterated those arguments also, which form the grounds of appeal. These arguments are also not found to be tenable. Learned Tribunal has critically examined the ocular and documentary evidence at 4 length. He has taken into consideration all the factors as available on record and arrived at a just and proper conclusion, which warrants no intervention. The impugned award is well merited and does not suffer from any infirmity. I am in consonance with the impugned award which stood decided in favour of the claimant-respondent and against the appellant. The appeal does not have any force and it fails. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal being bereft of merits deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and stands dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 26