Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1530 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Beena

2011-07-28

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the award dated 14.10.2003 passed by MACT, Laxmangarh Distt. Alwar awarding sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- to the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the bus of the R.S.R.T.C. as well as the conductor who permitted the deceased to travel on the roof of the bus. The Bus was being driven rash and negligently by its driver belonging to the R.S.R.T.C. It was alleged that when the said bus was near village Daroda the deceased came in touch with the three since he as travelling on the roof of the bus and fell down on the road resulting his death. The FIR to the incident was lodged at Police Station Khedli. 3. The MACT framed as many as three issues and Ex.1 to Ex.7 were produced. 4. The MACT after considering the evidence of the claimant and considering the documents Ex.1 to Ex.7 came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of negligence of the driver of the roadways bus. The MACT after considering the income of the deceased awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- vide award dated 14.10.2003. 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. Aditya Mathur, learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the MACT has considered the documents and the evidence on record and awarded the amount after considering the income of the deceased. 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. As the deceased was sitting on the roof and he fell down on account of hit by tree on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 100/- per day and Rs. 500-600 per month he must have incurred on himself and must have paid Rs. 2500-2600 to his family. He left behind him his wife and one son and two daughters. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 100/- per day and Rs. 500-600 per month he must have incurred on himself and must have paid Rs. 2500-2600 to his family. He left behind him his wife and one son and two daughters. The MACT estimated the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2500/- per month. The deceased was estimated to be 27-28 years of age and hence multiplier of 18 was applied and dependency of family was estimated to be Rs. 2,000/- per month. In this manner the MACT computed Rs. 4,32,000/- as compensation. 8. The amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- awarded by the MACT as compensation to the claimants 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 in claim case No. 82 A/202 stand confirmed. The appeal filed by the R.S.R.T.C. deserves to be rejected. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and is hereby rejected. The award of the MACT stand confirmed. The interim stay granted on 16.12.2003 stands vacated. The stay application also stands rejected. The MACT is directed to disburse the award money to the claimant as per the award.