Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2125 (RAJ)

Bhauri v. R. S. R. T. C.

2009-10-09

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2009
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of and pertain to one judgment and award dated 20th November, 1999, rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants Smt. Bhonri and others have filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.76/2000 for the enhancement of quantum of compensation from an amount of compensation of Rs.2,31,400/- under the award to Rs.28,72,000/- as claimed by them in their claim petition and prayed to modify the same. 3. Whereas in Appeal No.116/2000 the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has prayed to set aside the impugned award dated 20th November, 1999 and dismiss the claim petition of claimants. 4. The nub of the appellants' story is that on 25th August, 1998 at about 1.00 PM, the deceased Shravan along with his associates was going to attend the fair of Ganeshji. When they were going on foot on the way side of the road and reached near Lalsot Bus Stand, Dausa, the driver of RSRTC drove the bus No.14-P-7498 rashly and negligently and hit Shravan at his back, resulting into his death. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants Bhauri & others has focused his arguments on the issue with regard to the income of the deceased and contended that the deceased Shravan was 45 years of age and was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month from his agriculture and dairy business. The learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.2100/- and also in fixing the amount of dependency only as Rs.1400/- per month. The income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month has not been rebutted by the respondents, thus, while considering the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, the amount of compensation should be enhanced and the amount as claimed in the claim petition be awarded. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-RSRTC (who is the appellant in Civil Misc. Appeal No.116/2000), in contra, has contended that the vehicle No.RJ-14-P-7498 was not, at all, involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the statements of N.A.W/1 Jagir Singh and N.A.W./2 Ramswaroop Meena who on 25th August, 1998 happened to be the driver and conductor respectively, of so-called offending bus No. RJ-14-P-7498. Appeal No.116/2000), in contra, has contended that the vehicle No.RJ-14-P-7498 was not, at all, involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the statements of N.A.W/1 Jagir Singh and N.A.W./2 Ramswaroop Meena who on 25th August, 1998 happened to be the driver and conductor respectively, of so-called offending bus No. RJ-14-P-7498. These witnesses have categorically stated that their vehicle did not cause any accident on 25.8.1998 and a false FIR had been lodged against them. In view of the statements of these witnesses, the impugned award deserves to be set aside, hence, the appeal be allowed. 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the claimant Smt. Bhonri did not appear in the witness box before the Tribunal. The appellants examined two witnesses namely, AW/1 Shambhu and AW/2 Parsadi Lal and filed 15 documents in support of the claim. FIR No.475/1998 with regard to this accident came to be filed soon after the accident in Police Station Dausa. The accident is alleged to have taken place at 1.00 PM on 25th August, 1998 and the FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased at 3.30PM on 25th August, 1998. The police prepared the site plan, got the post- mortem of the deceased Shrawan conducted and after having completed the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the driver-Jagir Singh for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC in the Court. Albeit, both, the driver and conductor of the offending vehicle, have deposed that on 15th August, 1998 they did not cause any accident with their vehicle, but the ocular and documentary evidence on record, evince that the driver of the bus No. RJ-14-P-7498 drove the vehicle negligently and caused an accident, resulting into the death of Shravan. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of AW/2 Parsadi Lal who was also going to attend the fair of Ganeshji along with the deceased to Sawai Madhopur. It is he, who is an eye witness of the accident and lodged the FIR with the Police. In view of the evidence collected during the investigation and the statements of witnesses AW/1 Shambhu and AW/2 Parsadi Lal, the argument of the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. that their bus No.RJ-14-P-7498 was not involved in the accident deserves to be jettisoned. 8. In view of the evidence collected during the investigation and the statements of witnesses AW/1 Shambhu and AW/2 Parsadi Lal, the argument of the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. that their bus No.RJ-14-P-7498 was not involved in the accident deserves to be jettisoned. 8. Now, the only question which emerges for consideration is that as to whether the learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.2100/- as also in fixing the amount of dependency only as RS.1400/- per month. It is true that the appellants-claimants have stated that the deceased Shravan was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from agriculture and dairy business, but no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants to prove this income. The appellants have not even produced the revenue record which could prove that the deceased owned 10 bighas of agricultural land. Hence in the absence of any documentary or convincing evidence, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased as RS.2100/-, as Rs.70/-were the prevalent minimum wages per day at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal is also found to have rightly applied the multiplier of 13. The learned Tribunal, on this issue, has critically examined the evidence led by both the parties and rightly appreciated relevant material on record. The impugned award is just and proper, which warrants no intervention. Viewed from above angle, the appeal with regard to enhancement of quantum of compensation as also the appeal with regard to setting aside the impugned award deserve to be dismissed. 9. For these reasons, both the aforesaid appeals being bereft of merits, stand dismissed. No order as to costs.