Rakesh v. Sarbati — 1996 DIGILAW 1356 (RAJ)

Honble JAIN, J. – The appeal u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated 7.10.1994 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- to the respondent-claimants. The learned Tribunal has further awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 5.3.1990 till the date of recovery. (2). The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that on 8.12.1989, deceased Shankerlal was travelling in Tractor No. RRK 1468, which was being driven by appellant No. 1 Rakesh. It is alleged that the appellant No. 1 Rakesh drove the above vehicle very rashly and negligently, as a result of which, Shankerlal fell down from the Tractor and was run over by its front wheel. (3). An FIR of this occurrence Ex. P/3 was lodged by one Manoharlal at Police Station, Hindumalkot on 9.12.1989. Thereupon, the police registered a case and started investigation. The site was inspected and site plan Ex. P/4 and site inspection memo Ex. P/5 were prepared. After investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet Ex. P/6 before the Criminal Court. In the FIR, it has been mentioned by Manohar- lal that he was informed by one Balwant that Shankerlal was run over by the tractor. Thereupon, he called Rakesh and made enquiries. Rakesh told that Shnaker who was under the inflence of liquor fell down and run over by the wheel of the tractor. Rakesh and Bharuram lifted the dead body and left it in front of his house. (4). Claimant-respondent No. 1 is the wife of deceased Shanker and claimants respondent No. 2 and 3 are his sons and claimant- respondent No. 4 is his daughter. Claimant-respondents No. 5 & 6 are his parents. The claimant- appellants submitted a claim of Rs. 4,63,00/-. During the pendency of the claim-petition, claimant respondent No. 5 Nihalchand expired and therefore, his name was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 28.5.1992. (5). The claim petition was resisted by the appellants denying all the averments made in the claim petition in toto. (6). On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues on 30.7.1992. Issue No. 1 was with regard to the rash and negligent act of appellant No. 1, which resulted in the death of Shankerlal. The parties led evidence. (6). On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues on 30.7.1992. Issue No. 1 was with regard to the rash and negligent act of appellant No. 1, which resulted in the death of Shankerlal. The parties led evidence. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award as aforesaid. (7). The learned Tribunal held that there were no eye-witnesses, and, therefore, it was not possible for the claimants to lead direct evidence regarding the above accident in which Shankerlal was crushed to death by rash and negligent act of appellant No. 1 in driving the above Tractor. The learned Tribunal then referred to the evidence produced in the case and particularly the circumstances available on record and concluded that from the preponderance of the evidence, it was proved that the death of Shankerlal was caused by appellant No. 1, which resulted on account of driving the above tractor rashly and negligently as Shankerlal fell down and was run over by the wheel of the Tractor. (8). Regarding compensation, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased was 40 years old and was earning about Rs. 900/- per month. He applied multiplier of 25 and then determined the compensation. The learned Tribunal further allowed damages on account of consortium as also funeral expenses. In all, the Award of Rs. 1,54,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants. (9). I have heard Mr. J. Gehlot, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.S. Gill, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (10). The learned counsel appearing for the appellants very vehemently assailed the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal as regards Issue No. 1. The learned counsel contended that admittedly there was no direct eivdence. Even the circumstances which the learned Tribunal analysed did not point out to the rashness and negligence on the part of the appellant No. 1 in driving the above vehicle. Thus, it is very doubtful that Shankerlal died in the accident. (11). The learned counsel urged that the FIR is, to the effect that Shankerlal was under intoxication and as he lost the balance, he fell down and was run over by the front wheel of the tractor. Thus, it is very doubtful that Shankerlal died in the accident. (11). The learned counsel urged that the FIR is, to the effect that Shankerlal was under intoxication and as he lost the balance, he fell down and was run over by the front wheel of the tractor. According to the learned counsel, there is also some material to suggest that he was murdered and his dead body was thrown away before his house. Regarding compensation, the learned counsel contended that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. (1), wherein the maximum multiplier of 18 was applied. (12). On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned Award of the learned Tribunal. (13). I have considered the rival arguments made at the bar. As regards Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has taken pains to refer to the testimony of the witness and then came to the conclusion that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and, therefore, the oral testimony of the witnesses was not helpful in adjudicating Issue No. 1. The learned Tribunal then referred to certain cases and was of opinion that in such cases, the issue must be decided on the basis of the preponderance of evidence. After referring the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal drew an inference that it was appellant No. 1 who caused the death of Shankerlal by rash and negligent driving of the tractor. (14). I have also perused the evidence on record as also the circumstances noticed by the learned Tribunal. In a case where no direct evidence of negligence is available, it may be proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence. The learned Tribunal is not bound by the strick provisions of the Evidence Act. Normally, the claimants are required to prove the negligence by acceptable legal evidence. However, difficulties arises when the learned Tribunal is confronted with a case where no direct evidence is available and it becomes impossible for the claimants to produce the direct evidence regarding accident. However, the claimants cannot be allowed to suffer on that account. Normally, the claimants are required to prove the negligence by acceptable legal evidence. However, difficulties arises when the learned Tribunal is confronted with a case where no direct evidence is available and it becomes impossible for the claimants to produce the direct evidence regarding accident. However, the claimants cannot be allowed to suffer on that account. In such cases, the learned Tribunal is called upon to scan the circumstances available on record and draw a logical and legal inference from such circumstances. (15). The learned Tribunal has detailed such circumstances and also relied more on the FIR, in which the cause of death of Shankerlal has been mentioned is that he was run over by the tractor driven by appellant No. 1. The only fact that has been introduced in the FIR, which may help the appellants No. 1 in absolving from this liability was that Shankerlal was under intoxication. It was, therefore, submit- ted that on account of intoxication, Shankerlal lost his balance and was run over by the above Tractor. However, this version does not appear to be correct. The tractor of appellant No. 2 was involved in some accident and criminal proceedings were initiated and a FIR was lodged, which culminated into filing of a charge-sheet against the accused appellant No. 1. Under these circumstances, it is clear that it was appellant No. 1 who caused the death of Shankerlal and rash and negligent driving of the above vehicle. I see no reason to differ with the views taken by the learned Tribunal, therefore, uphold the findings of the learned Tribunal as regards Issue No. 1. (16). Regarding compensation, it may be stated that the age of the accused was correctly estimated by the learned Tribunal and it has not been seriously disputed before me. However, it was submitted that deceased Shanker was not earning Rs. 900/- per month because no evidence to this effect was brought on record. The income assessed by the learned Tribunal is at parity with the daily wages. Thus, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in drawing this logi- cal inference. There is also evidence that the deceased was a driver and hence, it can be presumed that he was earning Rs. 900/- per month. For this reason, the dependency determined by the learned Tribunal cannot be disturbed. (11). Thus, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in drawing this logi- cal inference. There is also evidence that the deceased was a driver and hence, it can be presumed that he was earning Rs. 900/- per month. For this reason, the dependency determined by the learned Tribunal cannot be disturbed. (11). Regarding multiplier it may be stated that the multiplier theory has been approved by the Honble Supreme Court in a number of cases. This theory was dis- cussed thread bare in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (2), and it has been held that the multiplier theory affords a sicentific test for arriving at a proper multiplicant and multiplier must be determined as per the facts and circumstances of each case. The Honble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. (supra) held that the maximum multiplier that can be awarded by a Tribunal in such case is 18. In the instant case, the deceased was 40 years of age and, therefore, in my opinion, the multiplier of 18 should be applied in the instant case. The monthly dependancy has been determined at Rs. 600/- per month and hence, the yearly dependancy comes to Rs. 7,200/- and after applying the multiplier of 18 to the yearly dependancy, the compensation that should be awarded in this case comes to Rs. 1,29,600/-. I further deem it just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- against damages on account of consortium thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,34,600/-. The apportionment of the above compensation shall be made as per the ratio fixed by the learned Tribunal. (18). For the reasons stated hereinabove, I partly allow this appeal and modify the impugned Award dated 7.10.1994 passed by the learnead Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar to this extent that insted of a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,34,600/- is awarded as compensation to the claimants respondents. The remaining Award of the learned Tribunal is maintained. (19). The parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.