Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 181 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Jagdish Yadav

2001-02-05

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE

body2001
Honble PRASAD, J.–These three appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Udaipur, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. (2). The Motor Accident Tribunal while dealing with the accident in question dealt with different petitions. Appeals in question relate to accident Claim No. 366/92 and 367/92. The Tribunal after consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that in Claim No. 366/92, injured Jagdish Yadav had received various injuries. His 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th rib was fractured. There was also a fracture of clevical bone of the right side. Right hand also got fractured. In the background of these fractures, the Tribunal awarded the claimant Rs. 85,000/-. (3). In Claim Case No. 367/92, a girl of 17 years Sumitra is reportedly dead. Her dependents have been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- by the Tribunal. The income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 2,000/- from teaching and stitching work. Rs. 1,000/- dependency was assessed for the claimants. A multiplier of 16 was applied. (4). Against the award, appeals were preferred by RSRTC. The learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the appeal of the RSRTC relating to the case of Jagdish in Accident Claim No. 366/92. As regards Claim Case No. 367/92, the learned Single Judge in appeal reduced the amount of claim. Against this reduction the claimants have filed an appeal. The Corporation has also filed an appeal because it has felt aggrieved by the amount awarded by the learned Single Judge. (5). First, we will take up the case of injured Jagdish Yadav. The appeal of R.S.R.T.C. against Jagdish Yadav arising out of the Claim No. 366/92 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the present appeal, the appellant R.S.R.T.C. only urge about the amount of compensation. Before proceeding to Judge the question of quantum, it may be worthwhile to mention here that one of the appeal filed by the RSRTC in the matter of the claim of Niranjan Lal Yadav arising out of the same incident has been decided by this court. It has been held in the case of Niranjanlal Yadav vs. R.S.R.T.C. (1), that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the employee of the Corporation. (6). It has been held in the case of Niranjanlal Yadav vs. R.S.R.T.C. (1), that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the employee of the Corporation. (6). Therefore, the only question which has to be gone into in the present appeals is the extent of the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has also fairly conceded that he cannot now assail before this court the question of liability. The only thing he can urge is in relation to the quantum. (7). The learned Single Judge of this court has observed in case of the injuries sustained by Jagdish Yadav that the claimant has sustained multiple fractures. The injured has been hospitalised for a good number of days and the number of fractures necessarily required his absence from business. That being the position, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal does not require interference. The amount awarded was not considered to be unreasonable and the Tribunal refused to interfere in the matter. The corporation has asserted that the claim is on the excessive side. As the facts are obtaining on record. There are multiple fractures of the ribs. Hand and clevical has also been fractured. The agony and absence from the work, if judged, from the point of view of the victim then a sum of Rs. 85,000/- does not appear to be a sum which is on the higher side. This court feels that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this regard is not liable to be disturbed, more particularly, in a Special Appeal. In view thereof, the appeal filed against the award in favour of Jagdish Yadav as maintained by the learned Single Judge has no force and is hereby dismissed. (8). Now we take up the case arising out of Claim Petition No. 367/92. The award granted to the claimant in this claim was to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/-. The learned Single Judge considered that the deceased was a girl and the normal presumption about a girl is that she gets married at 20 years of age and, therefore, the dependency cannot be expected to prolong. Only on this score, the amount awarded to the claimants was reduced from Rs. 1,92,000/- to Rs. 80,000/-. (9). 1,92,000/-. The learned Single Judge considered that the deceased was a girl and the normal presumption about a girl is that she gets married at 20 years of age and, therefore, the dependency cannot be expected to prolong. Only on this score, the amount awarded to the claimants was reduced from Rs. 1,92,000/- to Rs. 80,000/-. (9). The learned counsel for the Corporation urged before us that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered that a girl after marriage does not remain with the original family and the parents cannot be said to remain dependent on her for long time. In this background, the criteria adopted by the learned Single Judge that the Hindu ladies get married and loose connection with the original family should prevail with the court and therefore, the amount awarded even after reduced is higher. (10). The learned counsel for the claimants urged that the claimants have also filed an appeal against the reduction of amount. It has been urged by the claimants that the presumption drawn by the learned Single Judge of this court that girls sever their ties with the birth family after marriage are based on fossilised concepts of attitude towards indian women. Today, indian women is marching ahead and are prepared to take any responsibility and bear the burden of social and political life in the country. They are now not housewives alone. The society has recognised the potential of women out of house as well. In this background, it cannot be accepted that the opinion of the learned Single Judge on this count is sustainable. If the basis of reduction of claim is not held valid then obviously, the reduction in claim will also have to go. The learned counsel for the claimants has further urged that even the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate complete amount which the claimants deserved in case of death of late Sumitra. (11). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. We are of the considered opinion that in claim cases, the philosophical thought or age old concepts should not be brought into operation in such a fashion so that they have the tendency of negating the existing ground realities. Today, Indian women has acquired a position which can very well be said to be compatible to any other country or part in the world. Today, Indian women has acquired a position which can very well be said to be compatible to any other country or part in the world. That being the position it cannot be said that a lady would not have supported its own parents in family and on this count, the reversal of the order of the Tribunal was not justified. The Tribunal had also taken a conservative view on giving compensation because dependency has only to be judged upto 50% income of the deceased. (12). That being the position, we fell that the award made in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal was justified and that requires no interference at the instance of either the Corporation or the claimants. (13). In view thereof, we reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to compensation in Claim Case No. 367/92 and restore the order of the Tribunal. (14). In the result, the appeals filed by R.S.R.T.C. being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 18/97 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 41/97 are dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimants Kanwar Singh Yadav & Ors. is allowed to the extent that award of the Tribunal is restored.