Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- misra, j.1. the appellant-rajasthan state road transport corporation (for short 'rsrtc') has assailed the award dated 28.8.2001 passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, jaipur by which a sum of rs. 50,000/- has been awarded towards compensation for a grave injury, suffered by the respondent no. l ram lal, which is loss of his right hand. since the quantum of compensation is not under challenge, the facts relevant in this regard need no reiteration.2. the principal ground of challenge to the impugned award is that the appel-lant-rsrtc should not be held liable to indemnify the claimant-respondent no. 1 since the driver of the rsrtc who driving the bus, was not at fault. in this regard the manner of the accident has been elaborated by learned counsel for the appellant shri virendra agrawal, who gave a graphic picture of the accident and has stated that the truck coming from the opposite direction, was carrying iron angles which were projecting beyond the body area of the truck and since the claimant was travelling by keeping his hand out of the bus, he had to sustain the injuries. therefore, it is submitted that the fault lies either with the respondent-claimant since he had kept his hand out of the bus or the truck which was carrying the iron angles which hit the claimant. however, not much emphasis was laid on the point regarding the fault of the claimant. hence, i do not deem it appropriate to enter into this aspect of the matter, but in so far as the submission of the appellant's counsel in regard to the liability of the truck which was carrying iron angles is concerned, it is essential to state that the owner and the driver of that vehicle as also the insurance company with which that truck was insured, should have been impleaded as a party before the tribunal itself in my view although according to the appellant's counsel it is the claimant who was legally bound to implead all the necessary parties who claimed compensation. but, in my considered opinion if the claimant did not come up with a case that it is the other vehicle which was at fault, then the argument advanced by shri agrawal that the claimant was liable to implead the owner and the insurance company of the other vehicle is devoid of substance. it cannot be ignored that once any insurance company or the rsrtc takes the plea that its vehicle or its driver was not at fault in causing the accident or the grave injury to the injured, it is that party who should file an application for its impleadment before the tribunal itself and in the event of its rejection, it should have challenged it further under the relevant provision of law. at the appellate stage if it is argued by the counsel for the rsrtc or the insurance company that some other vehicle was at fault which was not impleaded as a party in the tribunal, the same cannot be entertained merely on the plea that it is the claimant who should have made the owner and the insurance company of this vehicle as a party to the proceeding for the obvious reason that it is not the claimant who has come-up with such a plea. anyone who denies his liability and tries to fasten it on another, the burden of impleadment of that party before the original tribunal will shift on him provided he comes out with a prima facie case in his favour in this regard. but once the plea is taken by the insurer or the rsrtc as in this case that some other vehicle was at fault in regard to which the evidence is not sufficient, then it is that party which is liable for filing such application for impleadment before the tribunal itself in order to arrive at a just conclusion after scrutiny of evidence. inaction in this regard cannot be treated as bonafide and it will have to be inferred that it is merely a ruse to escape the liability of paying the amount of compensation. the plea therefore, raised by the rsrtc at the appellate stage that it was some other vehicle which caused the accident which should have been impleaded as a party before the tribunal by the claimant and not by the rsrtc is fit to be rejected.3. for this reason this plea of the rsrtc cannot be entertained. hence thisappeal stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.