Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1844 (RAJ)

Vidhya Devi v. Narendra Singh

2005-07-20

N.K.JAIN

body2005
Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-These two appeals are directed against the Judgment /Award dated 17.07.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 664/1992, whereby Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,98,000/-as compensation in favour of claimants in respect of death of late Shri Badri Prasad who died in an accident took place on 25.07.1992 arising out of motor vehicle. 2. The claimants have filed S B Civil Misc. Appeal No 1038/1996 for enhancement of amount of compensation whereas the Oriental Insurance Company has filed SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 548/1998 to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the claim amount. 3. The Counsel for the claimants appellants contended that in view of the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 10 applied in the present case for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation is inadequate, therefore, multiplier of 16 should be applied. The Counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that it was a case of contributory negligence, therefore, the amount of compensation should be reduced to the proportionate for which deceased is held to be responsible for the accident. The Counsel for the appellants submits that it was a total negligence on the part of the driver Narendra Singh who was responsible for the accident. FIR was registered in the matter and after investigation the investigating agency filed a challan against him for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that deceased was not responsible for this accident. Therefore, he submits that no amount can be deducted on account of contributory negligence as alleged by the Insurance Company. The Counsel for the Insurance Company countered the submission of the appellant in respect of enhancement of compensation and submitted that deceased was working as Peon in UCO Bank and he was earning Rs. 2378/-p.m. If 1/3rd amount is deducted for his personal use then dependency comes around to Rs. 1600/-p.m. and even if the multiplier of 16 as contended by appellants is applied, the amount of compensation comes around to the same amount which has already been awarded in favour of the claimants. He submits that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned Judgment as well as the record of the Tribunal. 5. He submits that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned Judgment as well as the record of the Tribunal. 5. So far as the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is concerned, I find that driver of the vehicle non-claimant No. 1 was fully responsible for this accident. The investigation agency filed a challan under Section 304-A IPC against him. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence has recorded a finding that he was fully negligent in driving the vehicle and accident took place because of his negligent driving. I have also examined the evidence on record in this regard and I am satisfied that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is absolutely justified and deceased cannot be held liable to any extent for this accident. Therefore, this case cannot be treated as a case of contributory negligence and no amount of compensation can be reduced on this ground Hence, appeal filed by Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. 6. So far as appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, I find that although multiplier of 10 applied in the present case by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is inadequate and multiplier of 16 can be applied but at the same time, it is also clear that from the salary certificate, the deceased was getting salary in the sum of Rs. 2378/-whereas the Tribunal assumed that his income would have been double upto the age of retirement i.e., upto Rs. 4722/-and, therefore, he reassessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,750/-. The Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation treating the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2400/- p.m. after deducting 1/3rd amount for his personal expenses. It is relevant to mention that as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal are required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it be just and reasonable. 7. This is a matter relating to the year 1992. The deceased was working as Class IV employee in the Bank. He was 36 years of age. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,98,000/-as total compensation for his death in favour of the claimants. In my view the amount of compensation as Rs. 7. This is a matter relating to the year 1992. The deceased was working as Class IV employee in the Bank. He was 36 years of age. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,98,000/-as total compensation for his death in favour of the claimants. In my view the amount of compensation as Rs. 2,98,000/-with interest @ 12% p.a. was just and reasonable and no interference is called for with the finding of Tribunal. The amount of compensation awarded in the case is just and reasonable and no case for enhancement of the amount of compensation is made out, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimant appellants is also liable to be dismissed. 8. There is no force in both the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.