Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 888 (RAJ)

Harphooli Devi v. Krapal Singh

2003-06-30

HARBANS LAL

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Misc. Appeal u/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') has been filed against the judgment/award dated 8.12.1997 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neemkathana (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby a sum of Rs. 92,000/- has been awarded as compensation together with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that deceased-Gopal Lal Jat was the driver of Truck No. RJ 14-P 1333. He was going from Chomu to Sikar in the said truck along with Kanaram and Chhitar Mal on National Highway No. 11. When they reached Pahalpol Factory situated some 5 Kms. before Reengus, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'the RSRTC') bus No. RJ 14P 2294, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Kripal Singh, dashed against the truck causing severe injuries to Gopal Lal Jat and Chhitar Mal, as a result of which both of them died instantaneously. Kanaram was also injured. Thus, in all three claim cases were filed. The claim case being MAC Case No. 80/93, out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by the widow, three minor sons, one minor daughter and parents of deceased-Gopal Lal Jat claiming a compensation of Rs. 20,36,000/- . The driver and the RSRTC contested these claim cases by filing separate replies and denying the averments made in the claim petitions. All the three claim cases were consolidated and were tried together. 3. The Tribunal framed six issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after taking their oral and documentary evidence and affording an opportunity of hearing passed the impugned judgment/award. Aggrieved by the award, the legal heirs of deceased-Gopal Lal Jat have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. Notices were issued to show cause as to why this appeal should not be admitted and disposed of at the admission stage. The record was also sent for. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service of notices. 5. I have heard Mr. Manish Sharma for Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. 6. It has been contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager, inadequate and most unreasonable. The record was also sent for. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service of notices. 5. I have heard Mr. Manish Sharma for Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. 6. It has been contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager, inadequate and most unreasonable. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,200/- p.m. only inspite of there being un-rebutted evidence on record of Ramesh Chand AW-9 who has stated that he was paying him Rs. 3,000/- p.m. as salary. He has, therefore, contended that the income has not been correctly assessed and the amount awarded for loss of love, affection and consortium as well as on account of funeral expenses is also inadequate. 7. I have also perused the record and have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar. 8. It may be stated at the out-set that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 are not under challenge. Thus, the only question that deserves to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is just, fair and reasonable or not. 9. Mst. Harphooli AW-7 is the wife of deceased-Gopal Lal Jat, Ramesh Chand AW-9 is the owner of the truck on which deceased-Gopal Lal Jat was the driver. He has stated that he used to pay Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to deceased-Gopal. The statement of Mst. Harphooli AW-7 is also to the same effect. There is no evidence in rebuttal of this evidence. The Tribunal below has also not recorded any valid and cogent reason for not accepting the version of these witnesses on the question of income of the deceased at the time of his death in the accident. The only reason indicated in the judgment appear to be that no certificate of salary and no record with regard to the payment of salary to the deceased have been filed. According to the well established principles of law with regard to burden of proof, the initial onus on the claimants has been satisfactorily discharged and it was for the respondents non-petitioners to have led evidence in rebuttal to show that the income of the deceased was not Rs. 3,000/- p.m. but no such evidence has been led. According to the well established principles of law with regard to burden of proof, the initial onus on the claimants has been satisfactorily discharged and it was for the respondents non-petitioners to have led evidence in rebuttal to show that the income of the deceased was not Rs. 3,000/- p.m. but no such evidence has been led. There is no valid reason to disbelieve the un-rebutted statements on oath of both these witnesses. Therefore, in my well considered opinion, the view taken by the learned Tribunal below in this regard and the assessment of income of deceased is not sustainable on facts. 10. Thus, the income of deceased-Gopal Lal Jat is proved to be Rs. 3,000/- p.m. out of which ⅓rd will have to be deducted on account of expenses on himself. Thus, the economic dependency of the family on him, works out to be Rs. 2,000/- p.m. The age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of his death and according to the schedule provided in the Act and considering the uncertainty of life and his job, the multiplier of 16 may reasonably be applied in the case and thus the amount of compensation works out to be Rs. 2,000 x 12 = 24,000/- x 16 = 3, 84,000/-. 11. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded on account of funeral expenses appears to be reasonable and in accordance with the schedule and needs no interference or enhancement. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded for loss of consortium and love and affection appears to be reasonable and needs no enhancement. 12. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12% p.a., but as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomus, 1994 ACJ 1 , the appellants are entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. only. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the amount is enhanced from Rs. 92,000/- to Rs. 3,96,000/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation and the amount already awarded by way of 'no fault liability' or otherwise shall be adjusted against the above amount of compensation.Appeal allowed. *******