Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1230 (RAJ)

Ramjilal v. Navneet Singh

2010-07-15

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 31.5.1999 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Case No. 1066/1998, whereby the learned Tribunalhas decreed a quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the instant appeal, in a nut-shell, are that on 12.10.1998 at about 1.15 p.m. Ramji Lal, his uncle Bhairu, aunt Aandhi and his daughter Baby Maya were coming to Bamanao-ka-Dhaba. On sooner did they reach near the road then suddenly the Bus bearing registration No. RJ 05 P-0645, being driven by its driver at an excessive speed suddenly emerged from the direction of Jaipur on its wrong side and hit and ran over the child Maya resulting into her death on the spot. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award including the relevant material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on two grounds. Firstly, he canvassed that the amount of compensation awarded vide impugned order is abysmally low. Neither the learned Tribunal considered the notional income nor applied the multiplier, as suggested in the 'Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of reckoning the amount of compensation. On the contrary, the learned Tribunal arbitrarily awarded lump-sum compensation of one lac rupee towards the mental agony having been suffered by the claimants-appellants of the deceased child. He canvassed that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Malti and 52 others vs. M.K. Vasu and 52 others has held that if the victim child fell in the age group of 10 to 15 years, then the claimants of the victim child were entitled to the compensation to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. In the instant case, the age of the deceased child was 11 years, hence the claimants appellants deserve to be awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation. He has cited 2008(1) WLC Rajasthan Page 589 in support thereof. 5. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is perfectly just and the same warrant no interference. 6. 2,25,000/- as compensation. He has cited 2008(1) WLC Rajasthan Page 589 in support thereof. 5. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is perfectly just and the same warrant no interference. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the claimants have stated the victim child to be the age of 11 years at the time of her death. In the claim petition, the claimants are found to have recorded the age of deceased child as 10 years and before the Tribunal, the claimant Ramji Lal deposed that she was of the age of 11 years, but perusal of post-mortem report Ex.P/2 reveals that the victim child was only 6 years of age at the time of her death. It is relevant to record that post mortem report Ex.P/2 has been produced by the claimatns before the Tribunal. It is a document, which has been relied upon by the claimants themselves. Despite there being the recorded age of 6 years of the deceased child in Post-Mortem Report Ex.P/2, the claimants mentioned her age to be 10 years in claim petition merely for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation. Hence, in view of the contradictory statements emerging on record with regard to the age of the victim child, it seems more rationale to rely upon the post-mortem report Ex.P/2 wherein the age of the victim child has been recorded to be 6 years on the date of her death. The settled principle of law with regard to the determination of age is that either the age of the child must have been assessed by a Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem of the child's dead body or there should be some clinching documentary evidence. No documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants in this regard. Hence, the age of child recorded in Post-Mortem Report is found to be more reliable. It is mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex.P/2 that this child died in road accident. No documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants in this regard. Hence, the age of child recorded in Post-Mortem Report is found to be more reliable. It is mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex.P/2 that this child died in road accident. In the case of Smt. Malti and 52 others vs. M.K. Vasu & 52 others (supra), this Court observed as under : "With regard to compensation for the victim non-earning children, the Apex Court has extensively dealt with these aspects in case title New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender and Ors. (supra). Therefore, these appeals are disposed of holding the claimants entitled to the following compensation: (i) The claimants of the victim child in the age group upto 5 years shall be entitled to compensation to a sum of Rs. one lac. (ii) The claimants of victim child in the age group of 5 to 10 years shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- (iii) The claimants of the victim child in the age group of 10 to 15 years shall be entitled to compensation to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-." 7. Since the age of the victim child has been found to be 6 years and she falls in the age group of 5 to 10 years, hence in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/-. 8. The second thrust of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erringly absolved the respondent No.3 United India Assurance Company from its liability to pay the amount of compensation on this ground that the owner of the vehicle has committed the breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 9. Learned counsel took me through the driving licence of driver Shahjad and canvassed that this license was issued by the License Issuing Authority on 2nd July, 1986 and thereafter the same was renewed from 13th October, 1998 to 12th October, 2001. It is not revealed from the driving license that it had ever expired. It was valid through out. Hence, the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal needs to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 driver of the offending vehicle also has canvassed that the driving license of respondent No.2 was issued on 2nd July, 1986 and was valid upto 12th October, 2001. It was valid through out. Hence, the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal needs to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 driver of the offending vehicle also has canvassed that the driving license of respondent No.2 was issued on 2nd July, 1986 and was valid upto 12th October, 2001. He submitted the report of Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) in support his version. The driving license of respondent No.2 Shahjad Khan Ex.NA/1 demonstrates that the same was issued by Licensing Authority, Mathura (Uttar Pradesh). It has been found to be issued on 2nd July, 1986. It is nowhere mentioned in the license as to what was the period for which this license was issued. Usually, it is mentioned in the driving license that it shall remain valid with effect from a particular date, but this period is missing. Thereafter at the end of the driving license, the renewal period has been recorded, which shows that the license was renewed on 13th October, 1988 and remained valid upto 12th October, 2001. Nothing has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 about the genuineness of the driving license. There is no other evidence, which could assail the genuineness of this document Ex.NA/1, hence there is no option left before me but to rely upon the document, which is available on record. The document Ex.NA/1 and the report of the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Mathura, both, reveal that this driving license was issued to respondent No.2 Shahjad Khan on 2nd July, 1986 and it remained valid upto 12th October, 2001. Undeniably and undisputably, the learned Tribunal has erringly observed that on 12.10.1998, the driver Shahjad Khan did not have a valid license. This observation of the learned Tribunal seems to be based on no evidence on record. It appears to be the interpretation of the document of Ex.NA/1, but the interpretation is not found to be judicious and correct. Since no period of expiry of driving license has been recorded therein, it cannot be said that on 12th October, 1998 the driver did not have license with him to drive the motor vehicle. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to this fact is found to be perverse and caprice, which deserves to be set aside. 11. Since no period of expiry of driving license has been recorded therein, it cannot be said that on 12th October, 1998 the driver did not have license with him to drive the motor vehicle. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to this fact is found to be perverse and caprice, which deserves to be set aside. 11. In the ultimate analysis, the appellants-claimants are entitled to claim a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation and the claimants-appellants are entitled to claim the above amount of compensation severally and jointly from all the three non-appellants No. 1 to 3. 12. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the claimants-appellants is partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified to the following effect : "The impugned award of compensation to Rs. 1,80,000/- and the claimants-appellants shall be entitled to claim this amount of compensation not only from the respondent No.1, but, jointly and severally, from all the three respondents/non-claimants No.1 to 3. The Insurance Company will not be entitled to recover the interim award of Rs. 50,000/- from the claimants-appellants. The finding of the learned Tribunal to this effect is set aside. Rest of the terms and conditions under the award shall remain unchanged." 13. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. 14. There shall be no order as to costs.