Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1311 (RAJ)

Manna Bai v. Nathu Lal

2005-05-04

J.R.GOYAL

body2005
Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.-This appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants who are widow, sons, daughters and mother of deceased Kalu Ram against the award dated 10.09.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in M.A.C. No.234/1984. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.1984 Roadways Bus No. RSB-4505 was being driven by deceased Kalu Ram from Bhilwara to Jaipur. At about 7-7:30 pm near Dudu, a truck No. RSB 8623, being driven by its driver-respondent No.1 Nathu Lal rashly and negligently, collided with the Roadways bus, resultantly the driver of the Roadways Bus Kalu Ram and two other passengers died and one Kasim Khan sustained injuries. 3. After trial, learned Tribunal found 25% contributory negligence of deceased Kalu Ram-driver of Roadways Bus and after deducting his share of negligence awarded a total sum of Rs.91,290/-as compensation. 4. Aggrieved by the same on the ground of inadequacy, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that it was the sole negligence of the truck driver Nathu Lal who hit the bus by coming in wrong side, as a result of which Kalu Ram and two other passengers died at the spot. Relying on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors, AIR 1994 SC 1631 , it was submitted that learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects of the income of the deceased. It is urged that the deceased Kalu Ram at the time of his death was 43 years old and was a permanent employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short RSRTC) and was having good chance for promotion. It was also submitted that recommendations of 4th Pay Commission have been adopted by the State Goverment and its Corporations and there is a tremendous rise in the salaries of employees even serving with the Corporation. Reliance has also been placed on the Judgment s delivered in the case of Smt. Kalli @ Kalyani & Ors. vs. Indra Raj Bairwa & Ors., reported in 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC Page 789 and Smt. Chander Kanta & 5 Ors. vs. Ashfak Ahmed & Ors., reported in 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC Page 791. 6. Reliance has also been placed on the Judgment s delivered in the case of Smt. Kalli @ Kalyani & Ors. vs. Indra Raj Bairwa & Ors., reported in 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC Page 789 and Smt. Chander Kanta & 5 Ors. vs. Ashfak Ahmed & Ors., reported in 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC Page 791. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the findings of the learned Tribunal and contended that from the site-plan it is clear that the bus driven by the deceased Kalu Ram and the truck involved in this accident collided in the middle of the road, thus the deceased Kalu Ram while driving the bus also contributed in the accident by driving the bus negligently. It was also contended that learned Tribunal on the basis of salary being drawn by the deceased Kalu Ram, determined the compensation amount by adopting the multiplier of 16 which is on higher side in view of Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. This fact has come in the evidence of Kasim Khan (AW . 1) that accident took place in the middle of the road which is also evident from the site-plan produced in this case. It is also clear from the evidence as well as from the site-plan that truck driver was also driving the truck so rashly and negligently, that after this accident the bus was pushed back about 50 feet. Considering all the aspects of the matter, learned Tribunal considered 75% negligence of the truck driver-respondent No.1 Nathu Lal and 25% negligence of deceased Kalu Ram driver of the bus belonging to RSRTC, which in my view does not require any interference. 8. So far the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is true that learned Tribunal while determining the compensation did not consider the fact regarding future avenues and prospects of the income of the deceased Kalu Ram. It is an admitted case that deceased Kalu Ram was in the employment of RSRTC as driver. It is also not disputed that employees of Corporation are also being given the benefits of revision of pay-scales and grade increments etc. It is an admitted case that deceased Kalu Ram was in the employment of RSRTC as driver. It is also not disputed that employees of Corporation are also being given the benefits of revision of pay-scales and grade increments etc. The Honble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporations case (Supra), observed that it will not be inappropriate to take a reasonably liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present actual income of the deceased. Keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Smt. Kalli @ Kalyani & Ors. and Smt. Chander Kanta & 5 Orss, case (Both Supra), after taking into account the future prospects, increase in salary etc. estimated loss of dependency. 9. In the instant case also, as discussed above, the deceased Kalu Ram was having stable job in RSRTC and was getting about Rs. 700/-per month as salary and Rs. 100/-per month as overtime. In view of the entire facts and circumstances, Rs. 1,500/-per month would be appropriate as income of the deceased for the consideration of the facts of arriving at the figure of just compensation. After deducting usual 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses, the amount of dependency comes to Rs. 12,000/-per annum. The deceased Kalu Ram was 43 years of age at the time of his death. Taking into consideration the provisions of Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as a guideline, the multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in arriving at just and proper compensation. Thus, the amount comes to 12,000 x 15 = Rs. 1,80,000/-and after deducting 25% amount on account of contributory negligence of the deceased, the amount comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-and Rs. 19,000/-added for the loss of consortium, love and affection and care, thus, the appellants are entitled to receive Rs.1,54,000/-. 10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,54,000/-from Rs. 91,290/-with interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim application till payment.