Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2695 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rukmani Devi

2005-10-18

R.S.CHAUHAN, V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-By this common order we propose to dispose of these two connected appeals emanating from a common impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 05.02.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in an appeal that was filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu. The Insurance Company while challenging the award of compensation submitted, that the truck, in question was not involved in the accident at all. This point has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge and finding on the aforesaid issue has been recorded against the appellant Insurance Company. Learned Single Judge has returned the finding on the contention of the learned Counsel made above and on the basis of the admission made by the driver as well as by the owner of the truck with regard to the accident. One suggestion was given to AW -2 Bhanwari Lal in his cross-examination that he and Jhutha Ram both had consumed liquor and they had seen the truck from a distance of 100 ft. This suggestion in view of the learned Single Judge, goes to show that accident by this truck has not been disputed by the appellant Insurcance Company. Learned Single Judge also relied upon the investigation done by the police and filing of a charge-sheet against the driver. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the present case has reiterated the same points before this Court. 3. We find no illegality or infirmity in the findings on the issue aforesaid, that have been returned by the learned Single Judge. We find no merits in this appeal at all. 4. In so far as, the appeal filed by the claimants is concerned, we are of the considered view that the compensation as such awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, needs to be restored. The admitted facts of the case reveal that the deceased was 38 years old at the time of his death. He left behind him his widow, three minor children and his old parents. He was owning five bighas of land. His widow clearly stated in her deposition that her husband was earning Rs.10,000/-per month. There was no cross-examination with regard to the land owned by the deceased. He left behind him his widow, three minor children and his old parents. He was owning five bighas of land. His widow clearly stated in her deposition that her husband was earning Rs.10,000/-per month. There was no cross-examination with regard to the land owned by the deceased. There was no rebuttal evidence with regard to the income of the deceased as stated by his widow. Keeping in view all the facts mentioned above, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimant respondents at Rs.2500/-per month, which appears to be absolutely justified. A multiplier of 16 was applied which has not been varied by the learned Single Judge as well. Learned Single Judge, however, reduced the compensation by observing that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has straightaway worked out the dependency, without assessing the income of the deceased. If that was so, the learned Single Judge could have done the exercise of working out the income of the deceased. However, in the facts as mentioned above by not doing that the compensation as assessed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Could not be reduced. From totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the statement made by widow of the deceased it can well be said that the deceased was earning at least Rs.3500/-per month and if deduction of Rs.1000/- is to be made, dependency will work out at Rs.2500/-per month and that is what precisely was done by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 5. In view of the discussions made above, we allow the Appeal No. 30/2004 filed by appellant and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We restore the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with regard to quantum of compensation. Parties in this case are also left to bear their own costs. The interest granted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum in an accident took place in the year 1997 also appears to be justified.