Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2983 (RAJ)

Suleman v. Ilamdeen

2005-11-14

VINEET KOTHARI

body2005
Judgment Vineet Kothari, J.-This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.09.1998 of MACT, Jaisalmer in MACT case No. 28 of 1996. 2. The facts of the case are like this that on 13.05.1996 at about 7:00 AM in the morning Truck No. RJ-15/G-0090 parked near Ankur Company Crusher, Soni Mines, which was being driven by Respondent No. 1 driver Ilamdeen, was started and driven in a rash and negligent manner and soon upon starting the truck, the said truck crushed the khalasi Rasool Khan, who was sleeping in front of the Truck. The said person died as a result of the said accident. He was 18 years of age and the present claim petition was filed by his father and mother before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 arrived at a conclusion that the said accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said truck and as a result of the said accident, the said person Rasool Khan died. However, while awarding the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal in issue No. 4, the Tribinal came to the conclusion that the deceased Rasool Khan also contributed to the said accident, as he was sleeping at a spot or place which was not meant for sleeping and, therefore, he was also equally negligent in the said accident and, therefore, the respondents were held liable to pay compensation only @ 50% of the quantum of Rs. 2,30,000/-arrived at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application 12.07.1996. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Mr. Khatri, learned Counsel for the appellant says that once the Tribunal arrived at the finding that the said accident resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, while deciding compensation amount, the Tribunal could have arrived at a different finding and held that the deceased was liable for contributory negligence and reduced the compensation by 50%. 6. No body appears for the said driver and the respondent before this Court despite service. 7. Shri Chanda, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supports the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. 6. No body appears for the said driver and the respondent before this Court despite service. 7. Shri Chanda, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supports the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and this Court is of the opinion that though the Tribunal on the basis of statements of various persons, held while deciding Issue No. 1 that the truck was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the said driver since in those statements, it has also come that the said person was also sleeping just in front of the said truck just about 6 to 8 ft. of the same at a place which was not meant for sleeping and which was a rather a open ground, on the basis of this evidence, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error while deciding Issue No. 4 that the said person Rasool Khan, the deceased was also negligent to this extent as he was sleeping at the place which was not meant for that and, therefore, on the basis of contributory negligence, the compensation was reduced to one half . The said finding cannot be said to be perverse since the conclusion while deciding issue No. 4 is based on the same evidence, which formed basis while deciding issue No. 1. 9. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the net income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/-P.M. though in the statements of witnesses, his income was stated to be Rs. 2,000/- P.M. and there was no rebuttal of the same. The Tribunal has also not taken into account the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased and has applied the multiplier of 15. 10. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to take the net monthly income of deceased at Rs. 1,500/-instead of Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, computed the loss of dependency benefit, would be Rs. 2,70,000/-(1500 x 12 x 18) added to this Rs, 1,50,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection and thus total compensation would be Rs., 3,20,000/-, 50% of which come to Rs. 1,500/-instead of Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, computed the loss of dependency benefit, would be Rs. 2,70,000/-(1500 x 12 x 18) added to this Rs, 1,50,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection and thus total compensation would be Rs., 3,20,000/-, 50% of which come to Rs. 1,60,000/-The interest of 12% as awarded by the Tribunal shall run from the date of application i.e., 12.07.1996 till the date of award i.e., 09.09.1998 and thereafter, the awarded amount shall bear the interest @ 9% p.a. 11. With this modification, the present appeal is disposed of . The balance amount for compensation not already disbursed to the claimants, shall be so disbursed by insurance company within a period of three months to the claimants.