LexRAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. versus ALEXIS SONIER & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 564 A RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. B v. ALEXIS SONIER &ANR. (Civil Appeal No.2967 OF 2012) OCTOBER 8, 2015 [RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 - Accident claim - c Claimant, American citizen met with an accident while he was in India due to rash and negligent driving of Corporation bus - He suffered injuries and after treatment shifted to America by air under medical supervision of doctors - Claim for compensation - Commissioner appointed to visit America D to record the statements of 11 persons by order dated 11. 7.1990 - Evidence recorded by Commissioner - No objection taken by Corporation regarding evidence recorded by Commissioner of those persons also who were not named in order dated 11. 7. 1990 ~ Tribunal awarded compensation E of Rs. 1.25 crores including a sum on account of Special damages in respect of medical expenses in USA borne by Medi-Ca/ - Corporation and claimant both appealed before the High Court- Plea before High Court by Corporation that evidence of the persons who were not named in the order F dated 11. 7. 1990 cannot be taken into consideration - High Court deleted the amount under the head Special damages on the ground that there is no manner for the courts in India to verify the fact as to whether or not the said amount will be G paid to the concerned Medi-Cal department by claimant - Further, it held that statements of persons recorded by Commissioner cannot be ignored in view of fact that Corporation did not raise objection earlier - Held: Tribunal specifically recorded that counsel of Corporation was asked H as to whether he has any objection to take on record the 564 RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. 565 ALEXIS SONIER statements of witnesses but he did not raise any objections A and the statements of witnesses were taken on record - In this view of the matter; it is not now open for the Corporation to raise this plea now- There were evidence to the effect that the bus was driven rashly and negligently - Therefore, the question of accident being a result of contributory negligence B would not arise - High Court rightly observed that it is difficult to keep a track as to whether the amount awarded under head 'Spec~a/ damages' wot..ld be paid over to the Medi-Ca/ Department or not, and therefore, the High Court was justified in disallowing compensation under the said category - C However; the claimant is entitled to claim Rs. 10 /akhs for keeping an attendant for the rest of his life - Plea - New plea. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Though the Commissioner recorded evidence of persons viz., AW-1 OA to AW- 19 except AW- D 18 who were not named in the order dated 11.07.1990, yet, when the Commissioner filed the report along with the evidence so recorded, a specific question was put E to the counsel of the Corporation as to whether he has any objection but he did not raise any objection. In this view of the matter, it is not now open for the Corporation to raise this plea. [Para 12) [575-B-C; G] F 2. The site plan which was taken into consideration by the High Court, showed that the bus was driven at a sufficiently high speed and skid marks of the tyres of bus are about 32 ft. in length which were because of the speed of bus. The speed of the bus was quite high and G at the relevant time it could not be stopped immediately. The High Court, therefore, correctly held .that the bus was driven rashly and negligently and at a very fast speed. Therefore, the question of accident being a result of H 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A contributory negligence does not arise. So far as the question regarding the amount of damages/award in respect of Medi-Cal, which was deleted by the High Court is concerned, in the State of California, there is a Scheme under which persons who are not covered under any B insurance scheme like claimant are extended medicare facilities for which no payment is to be made by such persons and only the amount received as reimbursement has to be handed over to the Medi7Cal Department. In the present case, the Medi-Cal C Department has already incurred expenses for the treatment of the claimant. It will be very difficultto keep a track, as observed by the High Court, as to whether the amount awarded under this head would be paid over to 0 the Medi-Cal Department or not, and therefore, the High Court was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.