Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1529 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. Churu Depot v. Jai Kishan

2011-07-28

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the award dated 9.7.2003 passed by MACT, Kishangarh District Ajmer awarding sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant was travelling with one Om Prakash in the bus of the R.S.R.T.C. which was being driven by its driver in a very fst speed and the driver crossed the speed breaker with a very high speed due to which the claimant fell down in the bus from his seat and sustained fracture of back bone. Inspite of request the driver did not stop the bus and after a great persuasion he stopped the bus at Didwana Hospital and the claimant get down from the bus and lodged the report at Didwana Police Station. It was stated in the claim petition that due to injuries sustained in the accident he has become permanently disable. 3. The MACT framed as many as five issues and Ex.1 to Ex.49 were produced. 4. The MACT after considering the evidence of the claimant and considering the documents Ex.1 to Ex.54 came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of negligence of the driver of the roadways bus, but also held the claimant's contributory negligence. The MACT after considering the income of the claimant awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,000/- and fifty per cent was to be borne out by him and fifty per cent was to be recovered from the R.S.R.T.C. and in this manner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the claimant vide award dated 9.7.2003. 5. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. has argued that the computation of income by the MACT is irrational. 6. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant has argued that the MACT has considered the documents and the evidence on record and awarded the amount after considering the disability of the claimant. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The MACT has rightly considered the FIR and relevant document in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the Bus was responsible for causing the accident as he rashly and negligently driven the bus and caused the accident but at the same time also held the claimant responsible for contributory negligence. The MACT has rightly considered the FIR and relevant document in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the Bus was responsible for causing the accident as he rashly and negligently driven the bus and caused the accident but at the same time also held the claimant responsible for contributory negligence. It has come in the evidence that the claimant was earning Rs. 80 per day but treating the amount of 25 days estimated Rs. 1500/- per month as income. As the claimant did not work for one month a sum of Rs. 1500/- was awarded. For mental agony, as the claimant suffered 75% disability a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded. For permanent disability Rs. 13,500/- per year was determined. The age of the claimant was estimated to be 35 years and hence, multiplier of 17 was applied. In this manner claimants income for future was estimated as Rs. 2,29,000/-. The medical expenses of Rs. 5058/- was awarded. For transportation etc. Rs. 300/- were awarded. In all Rs. 2,41,358/- was computed. Out of this amount for contributory negligence Rs. 1,20,500/- were deducted and in total Rs. 1,20,000/- was awarded to the claimant. This amount cannot be said to be unreasonable. The award of the MACT is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. The findings arrived at by the MACT stand confirmed. The appeal filed by the R.S.R.T.C. deserves to be rejected. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and is hereby rejected. The award of the MACT stand confirmed. The interim stay granted on 31.12.2003 stands vacated. The stay application also stands rejected. The MACT is directed to disburse the award money to the claimant as per the award.