Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 453 (RAJ)

Harkori v. Mangla Ram

2006-02-08

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - Through this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant seeks to quash the award dated 17.2.1994 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition No. 29/90. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned award and the record of the case. 3. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its award under challenge dismissed the Claim Petition No. 29/90 filed by the claimant appellant, observing that at the time of accident, Prem Singh @ Prithvi was driver of the jeep and since the accident occurred on account of his negligence, his mother is not entitled to claim any compensation. 4. That sole question which requires to be adjudicated upon is as to whether deceased Prem Singh @ Prithvi was the occupant of the jeep or was the driver of the vehicle? 5. The factual matrix in brief are that on 14.11.1989 at about 4.40 p.m. Bus No. 1206 belonging to the Rajastnan State Road Transport Corporation collided with jeep No. CH-01-1037 and as a result of the accident, number of persons travelling in the jeep sustained injuries, while Prithvi Singh and one Ram Niwas succumbed to the injuries. The claimant-appellant Harkori, mother of deceased Prithvi Singh filed Claim Petition No. 29/90 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,54,200 on various counts. However, the Tribunal, as stated above, dismissed the Claim Petition No. 29/90 observing that Prem Singh @ Prithvi Singh was driver of the jeep and he was responsible for the accident. 6. Having gone through the record, it appears that respondent No. 1 Mangla Ram was driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. In his reply to the claim petition, Mangla Ram has disclosed that at the time of accident Prem Singh @ Prithvi Singh was driver of the jeep involved in the accident. Considering the reply, the learned Counsel framed issue No. 3 to the effect, whether Prithvi Singh, driver of Jeep No. CH-01 -1037 while driving the jeep rashly and negligently collided with bus No. RNE 1206 while the bus was stationed at the place of incident. Considering the reply, the learned Counsel framed issue No. 3 to the effect, whether Prithvi Singh, driver of Jeep No. CH-01 -1037 while driving the jeep rashly and negligently collided with bus No. RNE 1206 while the bus was stationed at the place of incident. The learned Tribunal discarded the evidence of two eye-witnesses, namely AW2 Mahesh Kumar and AW6 Bhagirath Singh and relying on the statements of Mangla Ram and Vishambher Dayal, driver and conductor, respectively, of the Roadways bus arrived at a conclusion that the Roadways bus was stationed at the place of incident and the jeep came running from the street and collided with the bus. 7. Mangla Ram, driver of the bus lodged the report (Ex. 1) of the accident. In the report, he categorically alleged that the passengers of the jeep sustained injuries in the accident. The FIR does not find mention that driver of the jeep sustained injuries or that the driver succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Vishambher Dayal, conductor of the bus in his cross-examination has categorically deposed that at the time of accident he was busy in checking the tickets of f passengers in the bus and that being the reason he could know about the accident only after collusion of both the vehicles. A glance at the statement of Mangla Ram indicates that as a result of accident the driver of the jeep died on the spot. However, he could not state the name of the driver of jeep. It may be reiterated that Mangla Ram in his report Ex. 1 has categorically stated that driver of the jeep died in the accident. Thus, the manner in which the accident took place falsifies the statement 9 of Mangla Ram, driver of the bus. It is evident that the Jeep was approaching the main road from Kachha path and the Roadways bus was proceeding towards Fatehpur. It is further evident that the front side of the jeep and left side of the Roadways bus collided with each other and, therefore, the driver of the bus sitting on the right side of the bus had no occasion at all to see the driver of the jeep. 8. It is further evident that the front side of the jeep and left side of the Roadways bus collided with each other and, therefore, the driver of the bus sitting on the right side of the bus had no occasion at all to see the driver of the jeep. 8. On the other hand, AW2 Mahesh Kumar an independent witness and Bhagirath Mal; an occupant of the jeep and sustained injuries in the accident have specifically deposed that at the time of accident Lakhpat Singh was driving the jeep at the time of accident. In my considered view, the evidence of these two witnesses is worthy of credence and I see no reason to discard their testimony. For the reasons, therefore, it must be concluded that deceased Prem Singh @ Prithvi was not the driver of the jeep involved in the accident. It was Lakhpat Singh owner of the jeep was driving the jeep at the time of accident. 9. It appears that keeping in view the finding of the Tribunal that, accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of the jeep, the owner-driver and Insurance Company with which the jeep was insured have not challenged the finding of the Tribunal and paid compensation for the death of Ram Nivas in Claim Case No. 14/90. 10. Having held that Prem Singh @ Prithvi was not the driver of jeep involved in the accident and he lost his life in the said accident, the only question that arises for consideration would be as to what compensation the claimant appellant is entitled to receive. 11. From the statement of claimant and his witness Mahaveer, it is evident that deceased Prem Singh @ Prithvi was a mechanic and was engaged with Kishan Engineering Works, Sikar, receiving Rs. 1,200 per month. According to the post-mortem report, the age of deceased at the time of accident was 25 years. It is further evident that deceased was unmarried and the only claimant is the mother of the deceased who, at the relevant time was 40 years of age and, therefore, considering the age of the claimant, I feel that applying multiplier of 15 would be just and reasonable. The deceased at the time of accident was earning Rs. 1,200 per month. After deducting l/3rd from his monthly income i.e., Rs. The deceased at the time of accident was earning Rs. 1,200 per month. After deducting l/3rd from his monthly income i.e., Rs. 400 for his personal expenditure, the amount which he could have contributed to his only dependent conies to Rs. 800 per month and, therefore, the amount of compensation under the heading 'loss of income to the dependents' comes to 800 x 12 x 15= 1,44,000. The claimant, mother of deceased is also entitled to receive Rs. 5,000 as against loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000 as against the expenditure incurred on funeral of deceased. 12. Resultantly, the claimant appellant is entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,54,000 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The respondent No. 4, Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On being deposited the amount of compensation along with interest by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal shall pay/deposit with the Bank the aforesaid amount of compensation in favour of the claimant appellant. 13. The appeal stands allowed in the manner indicated above, with no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******