{"id":185399,"date":"2008-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-05T02:11:34","modified_gmt":"2019-01-04T20:41:34","slug":"r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008<\/div>\n
                                                                            1\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                           AT JODHPUR\n\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
               CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 487 of 1997<\/p>\n
                              R.S.R.T.C.\n<\/p>\n
                                  V\/S
\n                           SMT. SITA & ORS.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Date of Judgment                :                 27.9.2008\n\n\n\n                    HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.\n\n\n\nMr. BS BHATI, for the appellant.\n<\/pre>\n
Mr. GAURAV MARU & Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, Mr. ANIL JOSHI & Mr.
\nSANJEEV JOHARI, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             This appeal has been filed by the Corporation<\/p>\n
against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Nagaur     dated    5.4.1997,       awarding     a     compensation        of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,71,200\/-,     along   with     interest,    as    compensation, on<\/p>\n
account of death of Vishnu Kumar.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The facts of the case are that according to the<\/p>\n
claim petition, on 22.6.91 the deceased was riding the<\/p>\n
pillion of the motorcycle, being driven by defendant No.5<\/p>\n
Deva Ram, and the delinquent bus of the Corporation, being<\/p>\n
driven by defendant No.1, rashly and negligently, hit the<\/p>\n
motorcycle on the rear side of the motorcycle, as a result<\/p>\n
of   which   the   deceased   was    thrown     away   in   a   pit   at    a<\/p>\n
distance of about 10 feet. The victim sustained fractures<\/p>\n
of the ribs, and received injuries on the head, and died
\n                                                                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
on the spot.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              It is pleaded, that basically the defendants No.1<\/p>\n
and 2 are responsible for the compensation, however in<\/p>\n
order to avoid any objection about impleadment, the owner,<\/p>\n
driver and insurer of motorcycle are also impleaded as<\/p>\n
party defendants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              The        defendant      No.1,       the     driver            of     the    bus<\/p>\n
submitted his reply on 22.2.92, contending that he was<\/p>\n
driving       his    vehicle      at     normal      speed,          with        all    safety<\/p>\n
precautions, on the correct side, rather the deceased and<\/p>\n
the    driver       of    the    motorcycle         were    driving            the     vehicle<\/p>\n
negligently, and on reaching on the edge of the road, they<\/p>\n
lost balance, and on that account accident occurred, for<\/p>\n
which the bus driver is not at all responsible. It was<\/p>\n
also    pleaded,          that    the    defendant         No.5           does     not     know<\/p>\n
driving,       and        therefore          the    accident              occurred.         The<\/p>\n
corporation also filed its reply on 21.7.93, and in this<\/p>\n
reply     a    stand       has    been       taken,       to        the       effect,      that<\/p>\n
defendant       No.4      (sic.    Defendant         no.       5)    was       driving      the<\/p>\n
motorcycle,         and    was    having       a    pillion          rider,        who     came<\/p>\n
towards Jodhpur side, and were going on the Kuccha road<\/p>\n
towards Hanumanbag at that time, the defendant No.1 had<\/p>\n
started from Nagaur for Ajmer, and in order to save the<\/p>\n
motorcyclist, he applied brakes upto a distance of about<\/p>\n
25 feet, the speed of bus is pleaded to be 20 kms. p\/h. It<\/p>\n
is    then    pleaded       that       the    bus    came       to        a    halt,       while<\/p>\n
motorcycle passed on, and climbed on a heap of sand, as a<\/p>\n
result of which it got imbalanced, and the pillion rider<\/p>\n
fell in the water body, which was dry. Then the bus driver
\n                                                                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
and    other      passengers          took       the   victim     out    of    the    water<\/p>\n
body,    and      reached       him    to    Nagaur        hospital.         Thus,    it is<\/p>\n
pleaded,       that     there        was    no    accident      with     the    bus, and<\/p>\n
there is no fault of the defendant No.1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 Thus, the stand taken by the two defendants is of<\/p>\n
total    denial         about    there       being       any    impact       between       the<\/p>\n
motorcycle and the bus. The learned trial Court framed<\/p>\n
number      of    issues.       However,          issues    No.    1,    2,    5     and    6,<\/p>\n
collectively            comprehended             the     controversy          about        the<\/p>\n
accident         and    negligence.           During       trial,       the     claimants<\/p>\n
examined A.W.2, 3, 4 and 5 on the aspect of issues No.1,<\/p>\n
2, 5 and 6 and A.W.5, while the defendants examined the<\/p>\n
driver      himself       as     N.A.W.       1    Maandan,       produced          the    Jr.<\/p>\n
Engineer Devendra Kumar Sharma, N.A.W.2, and the conductor<\/p>\n
of    the    bus       Mangi    Lal        Sharma,      N.A.W.3.        In    documentary<\/p>\n
evidence,         apart      from      other       documents,       the       FIR    Ex.11,<\/p>\n
charge-sheet Ex.12, site plan Ex.13, site inspection note<\/p>\n
Ex.14, MTO report Ex.17, seizure memo of the bus Ex.16 and<\/p>\n
seizure      memo       of     the    motorcycle         Ex.18,     have       also       been<\/p>\n
produced on record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 The learned Tribunal decided all the four issues<\/p>\n
together, and after cataloging evidence of the relevant<\/p>\n
witnesses, found that the question required to be gone<\/p>\n
into is, as to whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur<\/p>\n
answers the controversy involved in the case or not. Then<\/p>\n
referred to Ex.5 (formal FIR), lodged by defendant No.5<\/p>\n
Deva    Ram,      the     driver       of    the       motorcycle,       narrating         the<\/p>\n
happening of accident: Then site plan Ex.13 was relied to<\/p>\n
show, that there were marks of application of brakes from
\n                                                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
A to B, and the accident occurred at point A, which is<\/p>\n
part of the road, and thereafter there is Kuccha foot way.<\/p>\n
Then Ex.14, the site inspection note has been relied, to<\/p>\n
the effect, that at point A, the debris of the light of<\/p>\n
the motorcycle are lying. Then Ex.16 has been relied to<\/p>\n
believe, that the left side glass of the headlight of the<\/p>\n
bus is broken, and below that the bumper is bent inside.<\/p>\n
Then Ex.17 has been relied, to the effect, that bumper of<\/p>\n
the motorcycle is also found bent. (It may be observed<\/p>\n
here that in Ex. 17 there is no mention of any bent of<\/p>\n
bumper of the Motor Cycle). Then Ex.18 has been relied to<\/p>\n
hold, that there are marks of impact of accident on the<\/p>\n
vehicle. It was found, that if no impact had taken place<\/p>\n
between two vehicles, then in any case no marks could be<\/p>\n
found on the bus, nor on the motorcycle, nor was there any<\/p>\n
occasion      for   the     bus    driver      to    stop    the   bus,   while<\/p>\n
admittedly he had stopped the bus, carried the deceased to<\/p>\n
hospital,     and    from    the     various        memos,   the   things,    as<\/p>\n
emerge,    satisfy    that        actually     the    accident     occurred   on<\/p>\n
account of impact between the bus and the motorcycle. Then<\/p>\n
considering     the   aspect        of   negligence,         the   presence   of<\/p>\n
marks of application of brakes available in the site plan,<\/p>\n
and the statement of the driver of the bus Maandan, where<\/p>\n
he   admits    to   have    applied      the    brakes,      and   alleges the<\/p>\n
brake pipe to have burst, has been taken to be sufficient,<\/p>\n
to believe that the place of impact is the main square,<\/p>\n
where the driver is required to look around, on all the<\/p>\n
sides, which the driver failed. Thus, it was concluded<\/p>\n
that the accident was the out come of the negligence of<\/p>\n
the bus driver.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 In this appeal, it is precisely this conclusion<\/p>\n
of    the   learned          trial    Court,    which       is    under    challenge,<\/p>\n
rather, that only is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment, read to me the statements of N.A.W.1<\/p>\n
and 2, and the pleadings of defendants No.1 and 2, and<\/p>\n
then stressing much on the Ex.17 and 18, it was contended,<\/p>\n
that a proper reading thereof does make it clear, that as<\/p>\n
a     matter      of    fact,     no    impact       took     place       between   the<\/p>\n
motorcycle and the bus, rather it is clearly established,<\/p>\n
that     the      motorcyclist          was     driving          uncontrolled,      and<\/p>\n
looking to the bus, he lost balance, with the result, that<\/p>\n
motorcycle went up the heap of sand, on account of which<\/p>\n
the deceased was thrown away in the water body, for which<\/p>\n
the bus driver cannot be held negligent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 On    the    other     hand,       learned       counsel     for   the<\/p>\n
claimants supported the impugned judgment, and submitted,<\/p>\n
that from Ex.13 and 14, apart from the evidence of A.W.2,<\/p>\n
3, 4 and 5, it is clearly established, that the accident<\/p>\n
was a result of impact between the motorcycle and the bus,<\/p>\n
and that, the bus was being driven negligently. In the<\/p>\n
alternative, it was submitted, that even if it were to be<\/p>\n
found, that there was some negligence on the part of the<\/p>\n
driver of motorcycle, or that the negligence of the bus<\/p>\n
driver was only to a small extent, as compared to that of<\/p>\n
the motorcyclist, still since the deceased was a pillion<\/p>\n
rider,      it    would      be   a    case    of   composite       negligence, in<\/p>\n
which event the claimants are entitled to lodge claim for<\/p>\n
the     entire        compensation,       against       anyone       of    the   joint
\n                                                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
tortfeasors     and   therefore,       the    claim   has       rightly    been<\/p>\n
decreed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            I have considered the submissions, and have gone<\/p>\n
through the record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            At the outset it may be observed, that from a<\/p>\n
comprehensive reading of the record, the impression, that<\/p>\n
is created is, that none of the parties have bothered to<\/p>\n
tell truth to the Court, or allow the truth to be brought<\/p>\n
on record. Rather either side has proceeded in a single<\/p>\n
track manner, singing its own tunes, altogether bereft of<\/p>\n
truth.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            It would suffice to say, that if the accident had<\/p>\n
occurred in the manner as alleged by the claimant, that<\/p>\n
the bus came at a fast speed and hit the motorcycle from<\/p>\n
behind, the result would not have been as appears to have<\/p>\n
been, viz. no marks of impact of the bus are available on<\/p>\n
the   motorcycle,     as   only    damage     found   is    of    the   clutch<\/p>\n
liver, indicator light and back light, which appear to<\/p>\n
have been damaged on account of motorcycle falling down.<\/p>\n
So far as the marks available on the bus are concerned,<\/p>\n
being breakage of glass of headlight, or a dent in the<\/p>\n
bumper,    do   not   appear      to   be    out   come    of    the    alleged<\/p>\n
accident, inasmuch as, if the impact had been so severe,<\/p>\n
so as to make the bus receive dent in the bumper, by<\/p>\n
impact of the motorcycle, in all probabilities, motorcycle<\/p>\n
would not have been left with that minimal damage, as is<\/p>\n
noticed in Ex.17 and 18. This is one aspect of the matter.
\n                                                                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Other equally important aspect of the matter is,<\/p>\n
that   in    the      site    plan     Ex.13,     and      site    inspection        note<\/p>\n
Ex.14, at point A, the pieces of glass of the motorcycle<\/p>\n
have been found, and it is not in dispute, that bus was<\/p>\n
coming from towards the place mark by figure B, and was<\/p>\n
going towards the place marked by figure A, and it is also<\/p>\n
not in dispute on the side of the defendants, that the bus<\/p>\n
driver applied brakes. Reverting to the pleadings again,<\/p>\n
in the reply of defendant No.1, it is not the pleading,<\/p>\n
that he at all applied any brakes, or that he stopped his<\/p>\n
vehicle,         or   the      like,      while       in    the        reply   of    the<\/p>\n
corporation, which was filed after practically one and a<\/p>\n
half years after filing of the reply by the driver, it is<\/p>\n
pleaded, that the bus driver applied brakes to save the<\/p>\n
motorcyclist, and the brakes were applied from a distance<\/p>\n
about 25 feet, and the speed of the bus is pleaded to be<\/p>\n
20 kms. p\/h, which bus stopped, and the motorcycle simply<\/p>\n
crossed straightway, and climbed up the heap of sand, as a<\/p>\n
result      of    which      it   lost    balance,         and    the    deceased was<\/p>\n
thrown away in the water body. Thus, if either of these<\/p>\n
stories were true, there was no occasion for the pieces of<\/p>\n
the glass of the motorcycle being available at point A.<\/p>\n
That apart, coming to the statements of N.A.W.1 Maandan,<\/p>\n
he has deposed that the speed of the bus was 25 to 30 kms,<\/p>\n
he saw the motorcycle from a distance from 30 to 40 feet,<\/p>\n
then he blew horn, motorcycle was at a fast speed, and the<\/p>\n
motorcycle was initially going towards bus stand, then it<\/p>\n
changed      the      direction          towards       east       on     the   kuccha,<\/p>\n
thereupon he stopped the bus. There was no impact of the<\/p>\n
bus,   the       motorcycle       went    up    the     heap      of    sand   and    the<\/p>\n
pillion rider was thrown away. Then in cross-examination,
\n                                                                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
he    has      deposed,      that      on     his       applying      brakes,         the<\/p>\n
motorcycle       passed      away,    and     no    impact     took      place,       and<\/p>\n
that, on account of application of brakes the tyres were<\/p>\n
dragged     upto   a     distance      of     5    to   6   feet,     he   has        also<\/p>\n
deposed, that on account of applying emergency brakes, the<\/p>\n
brakes failed, and one pipe was burst. According to Ex.14,<\/p>\n
the marks of application of brakes are over a distance of<\/p>\n
30 steps. It is required to be comprehended, that if the<\/p>\n
speed of the bus was 20 kms or 20 to 35 kms, the bus would<\/p>\n
not     have    traveled        the     distance          of   30     steps       after<\/p>\n
application of brakes, more so when it is deposed, that<\/p>\n
emergency brakes were also applied. It is also significant<\/p>\n
to note, that in the Mechanical Examination Report Ex.17,<\/p>\n
it is not found, that that the brakes of the bus had<\/p>\n
failed, nor any brake pipe has been found to be damaged.<\/p>\n
Thus, this also appears to be clearly an exaggeration. Be<\/p>\n
that as it may. The fact remains is, that the bus clearly<\/p>\n
appears to be in quite a fast speed. I do not venture to<\/p>\n
assess the precise speed, but then it does appear to be at<\/p>\n
a quite fast speed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Then the story of the motorcycle going upto the<\/p>\n
heap of sand, and on that count, the deceased having been<\/p>\n
thrown      away   in     the   water        body,      also   requires          to    be<\/p>\n
examined, inasmuch as, this is not the pleading taken in<\/p>\n
the written statement of the driver. Then in the reply of<\/p>\n
the corporation this pleading of course has been taken,<\/p>\n
and the case of imbalance of the motorcycle on account of<\/p>\n
going    upside     the      heap     of     sand    is     also    pleaded.          Then<\/p>\n
significantly,          in   the      site    plan        Ex.13,    or     the    site<\/p>\n
inspection note Ex.14, no such heap of sand is found at or
\n                                                                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
around or even between the road, and the water body. This<\/p>\n
coupled with the fact, that it has not been suggested in<\/p>\n
the   cross-examination          to    the   driver    of     the       motorcycle,<\/p>\n
being Deva Ram, A.W. 2, that the motorcycle got imbalanced<\/p>\n
on account of going upside the heap of sand, rather he was<\/p>\n
suggested, that he suddenly swerved the motorcycle towards<\/p>\n
the right on kuccha road, and there was a pit, wherein the<\/p>\n
motorcycle fell down. On the other hand, the driver of the<\/p>\n
bus as N.A.W.1, to repeat, has deposed, that motorcycle<\/p>\n
went up the heap of sand, and the pillion rider was thrown<\/p>\n
away in the water body. Then in cross-examination he had<\/p>\n
denied the suggestion of giving wrong statement to save<\/p>\n
himself in the departmental proceedings. Then coming to<\/p>\n
the evidence of N.A.W.2, who is said to have inspected the<\/p>\n
site, for departmental proceedings purposes, it shows that<\/p>\n
he has further exaggerated the things, by deposing to have<\/p>\n
found     blood    spread    over      the    heap     of     sand,      which      is<\/p>\n
nobody’s case at any stage whatever. He claims to have<\/p>\n
prepared     various     memos        and    plans,    but       none    has       been<\/p>\n
produced.    Then      N.A.W.3    Mangi      Lal    (wrongly       mentioned         as<\/p>\n
N.A.W.1 in the original statement) is the conductor of the<\/p>\n
bus, and he has still different story to depose, viz. that<\/p>\n
on Jodhpur road at the octroi post of Nagaur, the driver<\/p>\n
suddenly applied the brakes, and thereupon it was found,<\/p>\n
that one motorcycle is lying at a distance of 10 feet off<\/p>\n
the road, on the conductor side, one person was standing<\/p>\n
near the motorcycle, and other had fallen at water body.<\/p>\n
The person in water body was taken to hospital, and after<\/p>\n
getting    admitted      there,       they   went     away.      In     the   cross-<\/p>\n
examination       he   has   stated,        that   when     he    asked       to    the<\/p>\n
driver as to why did he stop the vehicle, when no accident
\n                                                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
occurred, thereupon the driver told, that the motorcyclist<\/p>\n
was crossing the road, and since the motorcycle was on<\/p>\n
kuccha, in order to avoid any accident, the brakes were<\/p>\n
applied. He does not say, the existence of any heap of<\/p>\n
sand being there, or the pillion rider being thrown away,<\/p>\n
or the like. Rather he wants the Court to believe, that<\/p>\n
accident had already occurred, when the bus reached there,<\/p>\n
and it was only to extend humanitarian assistance, that<\/p>\n
the bus was stopped, which is nobody’s case at any stage<\/p>\n
whatever.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            With this, from Ex.13 it is clear, that the water<\/p>\n
body   is   shown   by   figure    C,    which   is    at   some     distance<\/p>\n
towards the east from the point A. In the site plan no<\/p>\n
blood etc. has been found at point A, rather the blood was<\/p>\n
found inside the water body, being at point C.<\/p>\n
            Appreciating     the   pleadings,         and   the     evidence,<\/p>\n
oral as well as documentary, as recapitulated above, it<\/p>\n
does   transpire,    that    bus   had    stopped     at    point    A, i.e.<\/p>\n
marks of application of brakes are upto point A, broken<\/p>\n
pieces of plastic glass of motorcycle are also lying at<\/p>\n
point A, and the victim is found lying in the water body<\/p>\n
at point C. The motorcycle was going from west to east,<\/p>\n
while the bus is coming from north to south. Point A is on<\/p>\n
the extreme eastern edge of the road, and at that place,<\/p>\n
towards further east, there is a kuccha road, on which the<\/p>\n
motorcyclist was to go.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In   these      circumstances,       if     the       story,   as<\/p>\n
propounded by the defendants were to be true, there was no
\n                                                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
occasion for the broken pieces of the plastic and glass<\/p>\n
being there, and obviously because there is no heap of<\/p>\n
sand, there was no occasion for the victim being thrown<\/p>\n
away in the water body at point C. Likewise, if the story<\/p>\n
as propounded by the claimants were to be believed, about<\/p>\n
the impact having been in the manner of the bus coming at<\/p>\n
a   very   fast    speed   and    hitting     the   rear   side     of   the<\/p>\n
motorcycle, resulting into the victim being thrown away,<\/p>\n
the tyre marks of the bus should have been found towards<\/p>\n
further south, as it cannot be believed, that the heavy<\/p>\n
vehicle, being bus, after hitting the motorcycle in such a<\/p>\n
manner,    as     to   throw     away   the    pillion     rider,    would<\/p>\n
immediately stop at that only, and would not travel beyond<\/p>\n
it.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Thus, in my view, it appears, that the bus driver<\/p>\n
was also coming at a quite fast speed, applied brakes,<\/p>\n
leaving marks of application of brakes for a distance of<\/p>\n
30 feets, and at that time, the motorcyclist, coming from<\/p>\n
west to east, must also be at a quite fast speed, with the<\/p>\n
result, that even that slight impact, resulting into some<\/p>\n
breakage of protruding plastic parts of the motorcycle,<\/p>\n
threw away the victim in the water body. It cannot be<\/p>\n
believed, that the motorcyclist had already crossed the<\/p>\n
bus, and lost balance by going up the heap of sand, nor<\/p>\n
can it be believed, that the bus was driven with such a<\/p>\n
speed and caused impact as alleged. It may be noticed here<\/p>\n
that the place of accident is near the square, where both<\/p>\n
the drivers were supposed to have been vigilant of the on<\/p>\n
coming traffic, and it that care had been taken, perhaps<\/p>\n
the accident would not have occurred. Thus to an extent
\n                                                                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
both    the     drivers     were     negligent     in    driving        their<\/p>\n
respective vehicles; which resulted into causing of the<\/p>\n
accident, and unfortunate death of the victim.<\/p>\n
              Since the two drivers, were both negligent, qua<\/p>\n
the    deceased,     it    becomes   a   composite      negligence,      and<\/p>\n
obviously therefore, the claimants are entitled to claim<\/p>\n
compensation from anyone of the joint tortfeasor.<\/p>\n
              Thus, modifying the finding of the learned trial<\/p>\n
Court, on issues No. 1, 2, 5 and 6, it is found, that the<\/p>\n
accident was a result of composite negligence of the bus<\/p>\n
driver, as well as driver of the motorcycle.<\/p>\n
              Notwithstanding this, the ultimate result of the<\/p>\n
litigation      is   not    affected,    whether     adversely     to    the<\/p>\n
claimant, or adversely to the defendants. The appeal is,<\/p>\n
therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ( N P GUPTA ),J.\n<\/p>\n
\n\/tarun\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 487 of 1997 R.S.R.T.C. V\/S SMT. SITA & ORS. Date of Judgment : 27.9.2008 HON’BLE SHRI N […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nR.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-04T20:41:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-04T20:41:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3175,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008\",\"name\":\"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-04T20:41:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-04T20:41:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-04T20:41:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008"},"wordCount":3175,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008","name":"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-04T20:41:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-r-t-c-vs-smt-sita-ors-on-27-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Sita & Ors on 27 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185399\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}