Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2615 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C v. Poonam

2006-09-01

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short the RSRTC') challenging the award dated 15.6.2006 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Distt. and Sessions Judge) Fast Track, Dausa in Claim Case No. 323/2006 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant- respondent No. 1 has been allowed and compensation amounting to Rs. 52,500/- has been awarded in her favour. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in an accident which took place on 14.11.2004 between Rajasthan Roadways Bus No. RJ-05-P-1094 and Marshal Jeep No. RJ-34-C-0174, whereas the claimant Smt. Poonam and others sustained injuries, five others lost their lives. 3. The claimant-respondent No.1 filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 45,25,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 52,500/-. 4. In the claim petition, the claimant, who was 22 years of age at the time of accident, asserted that she used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month by doing stitching of clothes, agriculture and household job. However, no documentary evidence was led by the claimant to prove her income, therefore, according to the provisions contained in Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act'), the Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum into consideration. It has come on the record that on account of the injury sustained, the claimant-appellant suffered 16 permanent disability. 5. The Tribunal, taking income of the claimant' to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum and age of the claimant being 22 years at the time of accident, applied multiplier of 17' and worked out loss of income of Rs. 2,55,000/- and after considering 16 permanent disability, multiplied the same by 16/100 and worked out the actual loss of income at Rs. 40,000/-. For the expenses incurred by the claimant on purchase of medicines, on the basis of bills of medicines (vide Ex.24 to 34) the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,500/- and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded for nutritious food. Under the head physical pain and mental agony, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 52,500/- has been awarded to the claimant. 6. 6,500/- and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded for nutritious food. Under the head physical pain and mental agony, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 52,500/- has been awarded to the claimant. 6. The main ground of challenge on behalf of the RSR'TC to the impugned Award is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus belonging to it and as such, the claim petition deserved to be dismissed. Alternatively, on behalf of the appellant it has been urged that the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier system for the purpose of assessing compensation in an injury case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned Award and also considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. As regards negligence, Issue No. 1 was framed by the Tribunal and on the basis of oral as. well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that driver of the bus was negligent. 9. The argument raised on behalf of the RSRTC with regard to the multiplier having been adopted by the Tribunal for the purpose of assessing the income deserves only rejection because even in an injury case application of multiplier has been held to be valid for the purpose of deciding the fact of loss of earning on account of injury and disability. Here, in the instant case, disability was to the extent of 16% and further the Tribunal has treated the claimant as non-earning member and assessed her annual income of Rs. 15,000/- as per Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act. At the time of accident, the age of the claimant was 22 years and for assessing loss of annual income on account of 16%, permanent disability that said income was multiplied by 17' and then again multiplied by 16/100 and thus loss of earning on account of disability was rightly assessed to be Rs. 40,000/-. For medical expenses Rs. 6,500/- has been awarded and Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded for nutritious food on account of the grievous injury for which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- under the head physical pain and mental agony. Thus, in all Rs. 52,500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. 10. I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 16%. 1,000/- has been awarded for nutritious food on account of the grievous injury for which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- under the head physical pain and mental agony. Thus, in all Rs. 52,500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. 10. I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 16%. permanent disability and on other heads is just, legal and proper and no interference is called for in this appeal. 11. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******