Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 471 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Sarbati

2004-03-26

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 02.04.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) (for short ‘the Tribunal’ hereinafter referred to) whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,32,704/-in favour of respondent-claimants No. 1 to 6 (for short ‘the claimants’) and against the appellants. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants. Perused the Judgment and award impugned. 3. The claim petition was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal inter alia alleging that on 31.07.1999 Sohan Lal, an employee of Irrigation Department, State of Rajasthan was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing RJ-13/4M-1488 from Anoopgarh to 32 GB, Sri Vijaynagar. When he covered a distance of 4 Kms., a Army jonga jeep No. 89-B/48668 owned by Union of India came from opposite direction, which was being driven by respondent No. 7 at a great speed, rashly and negligently and hit the motor-cyclist, which resulted is causing injuries to the motor cyclist Sohan Lal. Due to the injuries suffered by Sohan Lal, he succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital on the very day. At the relevant time, deceased was of 47 years of age and permanent employee of Irrigation Department of State of Rajasthan on the post of Upper Division Clerk. His basic pay was Rs. 5,900/-at the time of the accident and as such, his annual income was Rs. 86,400/-. It was also averred that all the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. Before the Tribunal, claimants have produced AW. 1 Sarbati wife of deceased, AW. 2 Jagdish Chandra and AW. 3 Chimana Ram. AW. 2 and AW. 3 both are the eye witnesses of the occurrence, who were travelling in the bus which was just behind the offending army jonga jeep. They were sitting just near the driver of the bus and they have witnessed the occurrence from the window of the bus. Their presence at the site was natural as they were passengers in the bus. The claimants have also produced AW. 4 Sucha Singh, AW. 5 Narain Ram, AW. 6 Rajendra Kumar and AW. 7 Vidaish Kumar. AW. 2 Jagdish Chandra and AW. Their presence at the site was natural as they were passengers in the bus. The claimants have also produced AW. 4 Sucha Singh, AW. 5 Narain Ram, AW. 6 Rajendra Kumar and AW. 7 Vidaish Kumar. AW. 2 Jagdish Chandra and AW. 3 Chimanaram stated before the Tribunal that on 31st April, 1999, at about 4.15 p.m. they were going from Vijaynagar to Anoopgarh in a Bus, near 74 GB they saw a Army jonga jeep which was driven at a great speed and negligently by its driver Alam Sriniwasulu on wrong side of the road and hit the motorcyclist Sohan Lal, who suffered injuries and ultimately died. He clearly stated that jonga jeep was just ahead of the bus in which they were travelling. Both these witnesses were sitting near to the driver of the bus. They stated that they saw the accident by their open eyes. The bus stopped after covering little distance and they got down from the bus and took injured Sohan Lal in a jeep to Anoopgarh hospital but on the way to the hospital, injured Sohan Lal succumbed to the injuries. After investigation police found the driver of the jonga jeep negligent for the said accident and accordingly a challan was filed against him in the competent Court. AW. 7 Vidaish Kumar is a witness to the site map. He has proved the site map. He stated that the motorcycle was on correct side of the road and the jonga jeep was on wrong side of the road when it hit the motorcyclist. He further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the motorcylist and the accident happened due to negligence of the driver of jonga jeep. The motorcyclist was lying in front of the jonga jeep NAW-1 Alam Sriniwasulu driver of the said jonga jeep stated that the motorcyclist was riding the motorcycle in the center of the road looking here and there at the speed of 80 Kms/hr. He was driving his jonga, jeep at slow speed and by seeing the motorcycle at about distance of 25 meters, he applied the brakes and turned his jonga jeep on right side of the road and that time motorcyclist dashed to the bumper to the jonga jeep. He was driving his jonga, jeep at slow speed and by seeing the motorcycle at about distance of 25 meters, he applied the brakes and turned his jonga jeep on right side of the road and that time motorcyclist dashed to the bumper to the jonga jeep. He stated that one Kamal Ahuja thereafter came and informed that injured Sohan Lal was taken to the Anoopgarh hospital and he died on the way. NAW-2 Prakash Chandra stated that the accident was due to negligence of deceased Sohan Lal. He further stated that the driver of the jonga jeep made efforts to save him. NAW-3 Kamal Ahuja stated that one motorcyclist over-took him and he was at a high speed and riding the motorcycle by looking here and there. He further stated that from a distance of 200 meters, driver of the jonga jeep, which was coming from opposite direction, seeing the motorcycle, turned its jeep to the right side of the road. The Tribunal relied on the evidence of AW. 2 Prakash Chandra and AW. 3 Chimana Ram, and their presence at the site was not doubted. The statements of these two witnesses were found corroboration from the statement of AW. 7 Vidaish Kumar and the site map. Even from the statement of driver of jonga jeep, it was clear that he first took the jeep on right side of the road which obviously shows that the jeep was on wrong side of the road when it met with the accident. The defence put forward that the motorcyclist was looking here and there appears to be highly improbable. More so, the evidence of NAW-3 Kamal Ahuja has not been relied by the Tribunal and in my considered opinion, rightly so. NAW-1 Alam Sriniwasulu was driver of the jonga jeep, who himself admitted that after some time NAW-3 Kamal Ahuja came and informed that motor cyclist died on the way to hospital, meaning thereby that he first met with the persons who took the deceased to the hospital and from them he gathered that the motorcyclist died because of road accident and thereafter he came to the place of accident where he found the Army jeep having met the accident with the motorcycle. At any rate he was not present at the time of accident at the place of accident. At any rate he was not present at the time of accident at the place of accident. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved this witness and held the driver of jonga jeep was negligent for the said accident. This finding of the Tribunal, cannot be said to be erroeneous; on the contrary it is just and based on proper and sound appreciation of the evidence and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal holding jeep driver respondent No. 7 negligent and responsible for the said accident is hereby affirmed. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was permanent employee in Irrigation Department of State of Rajasthan on the post of UDC. He was 47 years of age. His monthly salary was established by AW. 4 Sucha Singh an employee of the Irrigation Department, who produced service record of the deceased before the Tribunal. AW-4 Sucha Singh stated that deceased Sohan Lal was UDC in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, and his monthly basic salary was Rs. 5900/-with DA 37% and other allowances which came to Rs. 8083/-per month. He has proved his last pay salary Exhibit-11 showing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8083/-. The Tribunal, considering the fact that the deceased was on the stable job and he had future prospects and, therefore, taking future prospects into account 25% of his salary as enhanced. Thus, his monthly income was determined at Rs. 10104/. Thereafter, on the basis of unit system, determined the dependency @ Rs. 7809/-per month. Thus, annual dependency was worked out to Rs. 93,708/-, which was multiplied by multiplier of 13 years purchase factor, which is appropriate to the age group of the deceased. Thus, loss of income was work out to Rs. 12,18,204/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2000/-for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/-for loss of company, consortium etc., Rs. 5,000/-for pain and agony and Rs. 2500/-for damage to the motor cycle. Thus, total compensation was worked out to Rs. 12,32,704/-. The computation made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered if the compensation awarded is inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant case for a person of 47 to 48 years of age, on the stable job in the State of Rajasthan at salary of more than Rs. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered if the compensation awarded is inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant case for a person of 47 to 48 years of age, on the stable job in the State of Rajasthan at salary of more than Rs. 10,104/-per month, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive, rather it is just and proper. 4. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error in the Judgment and award impugned of the Tribunal. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.