Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 3 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Smt. Sugani

1996-01-02

B.R.ARORA

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Award dated 23.5.87 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as compensation along with the interest @10% per annum. 2. Claimants Smt. Sugani Widow of Bhagwan Ram, Mangi Lal and Miss Papurison and daughter of deceased Bhagwan Ram, on 9.11.84, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 1,92,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on account of `No Fault Liability'. It is alleged in the claim petition that on 11.5.84, Bhagwan Ram was going on his motor-cycle from Mahamandir to Paota side. A military jeep came from Paota side and was proceeding towards Mandore. Near Sanghi Bungalow the jeep suddenly took a turn. The jeep was driven rashly and negligently by its driver while Bhagwan Ram was driving his motor-cycle with a moderate speed. The motor-cycle dashed against the rear portion of the jeep and on account of this accident, Bhagwan Ram received injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 13.4.84. The claimants are the widow, son and the daughter of deceased Bhagwan Ram. It was further alleged in the claim petition that at the relevant time Bhagwan Ram was earning Rs. 500/- per month and was maintaining the claimants. He was, at the relevant time, 28 years of age and the normal survival age in his family is sixty years. The claimants, therefore, prayed that an award of Rs. 1,92,000/- may be passed in their favour. The claimants, also, claimed Rs. 15,000/- on account of `no fault liability'. This claim petition was strongly opposed by the respondents and the case of the respondents was that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by deceased Bhagwan Ram and the jeep driver was not at fault. The claimants, in support of their claim, examined PW 1 Smt. Sugani the widow of the deceased and produce in evidence PW 2 Har Lal an eye witness to the accident. The non-claimants, in support of their case, examined DW 1 D.D. Ramarao the driver of the jeep and DW 2 A.K. Bhatacharya. The claimants, in support of their claim, examined PW 1 Smt. Sugani the widow of the deceased and produce in evidence PW 2 Har Lal an eye witness to the accident. The non-claimants, in support of their case, examined DW 1 D.D. Ramarao the driver of the jeep and DW 2 A.K. Bhatacharya. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, came to the conclusion that both the driver of the jeep as well as the motor-cycle contributed to the accident as both of them were negligent and, therefore, he determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 72,000/- but on account of the contributory negligence of both the drivers, awarded 50% of this amount as compensation to the claimants. It is against this Award that the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident never took place on account of any negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep but it was only on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by deceased Bhagwan Ram that the accident took place. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that while awarding the compensation the learned Judge of the Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier and in view of the judgment reported in : 1994 (1) ACJ 1, the multiplier of twelve should have been applied. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the lump-sum amount has been awarded, therefore, some deduction should have been made in this amount. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, on the other hand, has supported the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. PW 2 Har Lal is an eye witness to the occurrence. He has stated that on the date of the accident, at about 4.00 p.m. he was going from Mahamandir to Jodhpur on a bicycle. When he reached Nagori Gate and Paota `C' Road, he saw a motor-cycle coming from Mahamandir side and a jeep coming from Paota side. The jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The jeep suddenly took a 'U' shaped turn and stopped. When he reached Nagori Gate and Paota `C' Road, he saw a motor-cycle coming from Mahamandir side and a jeep coming from Paota side. The jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The jeep suddenly took a 'U' shaped turn and stopped. The motor-cycle dashed against the jeep because the driver of the jeep immediately applied the brakes.DW 1 D.D. Ramarao is the driver of the jeep. He has stated that on 11.5.84 the accident of his jeep with the motor-cycle took place at about 1.00/2.00 p.m. He turned his jeep from Mandore road towards Paota side and when his vehicle took the turn, he heard the sound of dashing some vehicle against his jeep. He stopped the jeep and informed his Unit Incharge Officer and, thereafter, Accident Squade reached at the spot. 6. From the evidence of these two witnesses it has, therefore, been established that the accident took place while the jeep was taking a turn and it was on account of the sudden application of the brakes by the driver of the jeep that the jeep stopped in the middle of the road and the motor-cycle of Bhagwan Ram dashed against the jeep. Both the drivers of the jeep and the motor-cycle, therefore, contributed to the accident and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was justified in holding both of them liable for the accident. The finding arrived at by the learned Judge of the Tribunal that both the drivers contributed to the accident, thus, does not require any interference as the accident took place on account of the contributory negligence of both the drivers. 7. The next question requires consideration is : what should be the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case? Of course, in view of the judgment reported in : 1994 (1) ACJ 1, looking to the age of the claimants and the deceased, the multiplier of 14 should be applied but nothing has been awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal on account of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection to the children as well as on account of mental agony and physical pain. I, therefore, do not think it proper to reduce any amount from the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In my opinion, the compensation awarded to the claimants is not on the higher side, rather it is on the lower side. I, therefore, do not think it proper to reduce any amount from the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In my opinion, the compensation awarded to the claimants is not on the higher side, rather it is on the lower side. 8. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the lump-sum-amount is being paid, some deduction should be made. This contention is devoid of any force. While awarding the compensation and applying the multiplier, the inflation of the currency, avenues of promotion, prospects and future increase in the income and the fact of like in the prices are to be taken note-of. If these facts are taken into consideration then the lump-sum amount does not require any deduction on this count. 9. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal-and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******