- (1.) The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short RSRTC) has filed the above these three appeals against the common award dated 15th March, 2011 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Communal Riots) Jaipur City Jaipur (in short MACT) in Claim Case Nos. 1102/2004 (1071/1996), 1107/2004 (1670/1997) and 1103/2004 (1630/1996) whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed and they were awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000, 3,75,200 and 1,91,900 respectively. SBCMA No. 2410/2011 related to death of Kumari Deepa (passenger), daughter of Brijlal, SBCMA No. 2402/2011 related to death of Ramjilal (driver) and SBCMA No. 2413 of 2011 related to injuries sustained and 30% permanent disability by the claimant Mitthan Lal (conductor). It will be proper for this Court to decide these appeals by this common order. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and, hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 22nd May, 1996 deceased Ramjilal was driving Bus No. RJ 07 P 1038 (RSRTC's bus) going from Mahwa to Dausa. Due to bomb blast in the bus on account of terrorist activities, Ramjilal (driver of the bus) and Kumari Deepa (passenger), died and Mitthan Lal (who was conductor in the bus) injured received injuries. Ramjilal was driver of the bus and Kumari Deepa, who was daughter of Brijlal was travelling in the bus as passenger, and Mitthan Lal was conductor of the bus of the RSRTC. On account of death of Ramjilal and Kumari Deepa, their legal heirs filed claim petitions and on account of 30 per cent permanent disablement and injuries received by injured Mitthan Lal he also filed claim petition for the injuries received by him in the accident. The reply to the claim petitions were filed and issues were framed and after recording the evidence of the parties and production of documents, the MACT after hearing the parties allowed the claim petitions vide, common award dated 15th March, 2011 mentioned above. Against the award of compensation by the MACT, the RSRTC preferred these three appeals against the claimants.
(3.) Common arguments of the learned Counsel for the RSRTC in all the three appeals is that the findings regarding issues 1 and 3 are absolutely perverse and contrary to the record. The MACT committed serious error in holding that accident in question occurred due to negligence of the driver of the RSRTC. It has been argued that there was no offence made out punishable under Section 279 of IPC against the driver regarding rash and negligent driving and as such merely because there was bomb blast on account of terrorist activities, it cannot be said it is a case comes under the purview of Act of 1988. The conductor of the bus who lodged the FIR has been examined by the RSRTC and it has come on the record that the bus was examined before its journey and there was no negligence on the part of the driver and conductor of the RSRTC and the accident took place due to the reasons beyond the control of the RSRTC and hence the accident in question does not fall within the purview of the Act of 1988. It has been further argued that it is the basic principle of law that the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for compensation on account of negligence of his employee under the law of torts, but when it is established that there was no negligence of the driver of the bus and thus the impugned order being contrary to law liable to be quashed.;