Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1501 (RAJ)

Divisional Forest Officer v. Bhagwati Deviq

2004-10-13

R.P.VYAS

body2004
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated March 29, 1993, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Dacoity Affected Area), Bharatpur, in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 27/91. 2. Thefacts of the instant appeal are that claimant- respondents filed a claim petition under Section 110 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur on 110.88. 3. In the said claim petition, inter alia, it is alleged that the Gyan Chand died in a road accident between village Tholia and Lakhanpur, near Nursery on 19.88. Deceased Shri Gyan Chand who was Head Master in the Upper Primary School, village Mayee was going on the road from village Mayee on his cycle when at the named spot, he was hit by a Motor Cycle No. RN1 8631 which was being driven rashly, carelessly and negligently at high speed by the appellant Dayashanker, the said Gyan Chand was hit so hard that he fell down from the cycle and sustained grievous injuries on the head and in consequence of the said injuries, he died instantaneously on the spot. The said Daya Shanker while knowing that Gyan Chand had died and, therefore, he ran away, without taking care of the deceased. The report of the said incident was lodged in Police Station, Nadbai, investigation was made and a criminal case was registered against Daya Shanker. At the time of the accident, Gyan Chand was at the age of 50 years and 6 months and was getting pay Rs. 2368/-per month or more. He was also have a source of earning from Agriculture and would have derived income even if he had retired on superannuation. In the claim petition filed before the MACT, damages for mental torture and agony and for deprivation of love and affection by the family members were also claimed. In all, compensation of Rs. 11,07,166/-was claimed. 4. Daya Shanker submitted a reply and rebutted all the facts as averred in the claim petition and categorically denied that there was no fault on his part with regard to the accident which took place on 19.88 by Motor Cycle No. RNE 8631 and that the claim has been filed simply to embarrass him. He was in no way connected with the Motor Cycle in question. 5. He was in no way connected with the Motor Cycle in question. 5. The Insurance Company is also made a party in the claim petition. In lieu of the reply, it is stated that Motor Cycle No. RNE 8631 did not stand insure with that company on the date of the alleged accident. 6. The appellant Divisional Forest Officer, in reply to the claim petition, submitted that the Motor Cycle in question had been given to the Van Chetna Kendra, Bharatpur for Government Duty by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bharatpur and the vehicle was registered in the name of conservator of Forest, Social Forestry, Jaipur. As such that officer and not the Divisional Forest Officer, Bharatpur was owner of the vehicle. The said motor cycle was given to Daya Shanker by the Regional Forest Officer. It was also submitted that the amount of claim was very high and in any case, the claimants are not entitled to any claim and the claim petition should be dismissed on that very above ground. 7. Thevehicle in question which is not ensured on the date of the accident, therefore, the name of the Nation Insurance Company was ordered to be removed from the title of the claim on 12.92 in the claim petition. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on 18.7.92, which read as under :- “1. Whether Daya Shanker while driving Motor Cycle No. RNE 8631 rashly and negligently on 19.88 caused road accident on the Tohala Lakhanpur road as a result of which Shri Gyan Chand Jain died? .2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be awarded the amount of compensation claimed by them if so to what extent and from whom? .3. Relief” 9. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and scanning the evidence on record and examining the documents produced by the concerned parties, arrived at the conclusion that the accident was caused by Daya Shanker through rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cycle No. RNI 8631, as a result of which, Gyan Chand died on the spot. The learned Tribunal, therefore, awarded sum of Rs. 2,58,566/-as a compensation to be payable jointly and severally by the State of Rajasthan and Daya Shanker. The amount of Rs. The learned Tribunal, therefore, awarded sum of Rs. 2,58,566/-as a compensation to be payable jointly and severally by the State of Rajasthan and Daya Shanker. The amount of Rs. 25,000/-which had been deposited at the initial stage of the hearing of the claim petition was allowed to be set off from the amount of compensation award. The rate of interest 12% per annum was also awarded on the amount since 110.88. The Tribunal has ordered that the entire amount of the award be paid within 30 days from the date of the award and in case of any default, in order to make the payment, higher rate of interest 15% per annum was ordered to be payable from the date of the award itself .10. The appellant being aggrieved by the above award dated 29.3.93 made by the Tribunal, preferred this appeal against the said award. .11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 12. The main thrust of the argument of the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the finding that Gyan Chand Jain died because of any road accident which resulted into his death. The said accident was caused by Daya Shanker by rashly and negligently driving the Motor Cycle. But that fact has not been established by the evidence. Despite that, the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the Motor Cycle No. RNI 8631 was being driven by Daya Shanker appellant and he caused the said accident, which resulted into the death of Gyan Chand. All the affairs have been caused in the course of employment in performance of Government duty. He further averred that the learned Tribunal has erred in filing responsibility of payment of the amount of compensation on the Government by virtue of owner of the concerned vehicle and on Dayashanker as the imagined driver thereof 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in wrongly appreciating the evidence of NAW 1 Udaishanker, NAW 2 Radhey Shyam and NAW 3 Bharat Singh. All these witnesses supported the contention of the appellant, but the same has been ignored on the ground of wrong appreciation of the evidence. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in wrongly appreciating the evidence of NAW 1 Udaishanker, NAW 2 Radhey Shyam and NAW 3 Bharat Singh. All these witnesses supported the contention of the appellant, but the same has been ignored on the ground of wrong appreciation of the evidence. 14. Hehas raised certain other different grounds regarding the criminal case and also averred that the Tribunal has also erred in assessing the amount of compensation awarded and the said compensation is on much higher side looking to the salary income of the deceased, which is not justiciable. 15. Hefurther contended that the amount, which was being paid under, the different heads, has no basis. On the basis of conjectures and surmises, awarding of amount in different heads, without any cause and reason, is absolutely illegal and perverse and subject to judicial review of this Hon’ble Court. 16. He also contended that the rate of interest is very much high and other grounds were also raised by the appellant, but the same were discarded without any rhyme and reason. 17. Learned Counsel for the respondents has controverted the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant and contended that issue No. 1 with reference to rash and negligence has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and solatium so determined in the said claim petition is Justified and so far as the rate of interest is concerned, it has been determined by the Court while exercising its discretion. In support of his contention he has cited Abati Bezbaruah vs. Director General, Geological Survey of India, AIR 2003 SC 1817 and G.S.R.T.C. vs. Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora & Ors., 2002 (3) TAC 465 (Guj.). 9.18. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and examined the matter on the basis of the factual aspect as well as on the basis of the evidence led in this matter. 10.19. So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, the Tribunal has made an enquiry after appreciating the evidence on record and accordingly justified the issue No. 1 and established that there was a rash and negligent act on the part of the driver which caused the death of the deceased Gyan Chand. 10.19. So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, the Tribunal has made an enquiry after appreciating the evidence on record and accordingly justified the issue No. 1 and established that there was a rash and negligent act on the part of the driver which caused the death of the deceased Gyan Chand. The finding so arrived at in this regard is justified and they is no reason to make any interference with respect to fact finding enquiry which deciding the issue No. 1 in the said claim petition. I have further examined and scanned the matter with reference to issue No. 2. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record as well as the documentary evidence on record, has given a categorical finding and established the amount of the claim while taking into consideration the age of the deceased and his earning capacity and accordingly the amount of compensation has been determined. That being the position, there is no reason to make any interference in this regard with respect of issue No. 2, under which the Tribunal has awarded amount of compensation with 12% rate of interest per an hum since the date of the claim petition dated 110.88 and the Tribunal has held responsible jointly and severally Daya Shanker as well as the State of Rajasthan through Divisional Forest Officer, Bharatpur, being principal employer and him liable for this issue, I have further examined the matter with respect to different heads of the claim. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding with concrete reasons with regard to salary and income of the claimant deceased and accordingly determined the solatium, hence thee is no reason to make any interference in this regard. 20. Lastly, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality of irregularity while deciding issues No. 1 and 2, but on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, finding has been arrived at while assigning the concrete reasons based on documentary and oral evidence on record and accordingly decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants-respondents. In this view of the matter, it is not in the interest of justice to make any interference in the subject matter of dispute under appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. 21. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, the stay application also stands dismissed.