Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2195 (RAJ)

Prabhati v. R. S. R. T. C.

2011-10-13

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant Smt. Prabhati Devi and seven others aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 3.1.1996 by which the compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- was awarded to the appellants with regard to death claim of deceased Jhabar Mal. Jhabar Mal was while driving the jeep met with an accident when the jeep collided with bus of respondent RNP 1589, which was being driven by respondent No.2. 2. Shri Ram Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of AW-6 Rajesh Kumar and AW-7 Ravindra Kumar, who was travelling in that bus and also AW-1 Chotu Ram who was the lodger of the first information report clearly proved that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 and in a very high speed, which is more than 100 kms per hour and that the bus hit the jeep on the wrong side. The jeep was on its correct side and was at a very moderate speed. The suggestion of NAW Kalyan Sahai could not be believed that the accident took place while the jeep was trying to overtake the bus. Learned counsel submitted at the time when accident took place, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not in force therefore the restriction of multiplier cannot be applied in this case. The computation of compensation should be therefore made on the basis of expediency of life of the deceased which in any case should be by applying the multiplier of 30. 3. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that even according to the Act, at the age of 30, the correct multiplier as per second schedule thereof would be 18 and not 16, which has been applied by learned Tribunal. Besides, according to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.- 2009 ACJ 1298 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), in which case there were 8 dependents and it was held that not more than 1/5th can be deducted for the self expenses of the deceased, whereas in the present case, the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd . The deceased also had income from dairy farming and the agriculture and was earning a sum of Rs.1500 per month, which was not accepted. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed. 4. The deceased also had income from dairy farming and the agriculture and was earning a sum of Rs.1500 per month, which was not accepted. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed. 4. No one has appeared to oppose the appeal on behalf of respondent. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record, I find that the learned Tribunal on analysis of the evidence and examination of statement of AW-1 Chotu Ram, AW-6 Rajesh Kumar, AW-7 Ravindra Kumar and also the site plan Ex.P2 concluded that although the bus driver was negligent on account of which the accident took place but at the same time also found that the jeep driver allowed four passengers in the front seat, which was meant for two passengers and which is why he was not able to effectively control the jeep, thus thereby he partially contributed towards the accident. It was because of this reason that the present one is the case of composite negligence. However, while making apportionment of negligence, the bus driver was held 75% negligent for the accident and 25% negligence was of driver of the jeep. 6. I do not find any infirmity in that finding. As regards the income aspect, the accident took place in the year 1991 and considering the time of accident, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.1500 per month as a bus driver was not reasonable. For other agriculture and dairy farming etc. no proof was furnished as such. If the deceased was a jeep driver, it would not be accepted that he has engaged himself in dairy farming or agriculture. However, learned counsel for the appellant justified on the other two aspects that the multiplier at the age of 30 should have been of 18 and accordingly the compensation should have been computed. Moreover, as per the judgment of Supreme Court, deduction of only 1/5th could be made for the self expenses of the deceased, not of 1/3rd because there were 8 dependents of the deceased in this appeal. 7. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. While the compensation awarded in all other heads is maintained, the compensation is computed while deducting 1/5th from the income of the assessee which is estimated to be Rs.1500 per month, therefore, the income comes to Rs.1200 (Rs.1500-300=1200) after deducting self expenses. 7. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. While the compensation awarded in all other heads is maintained, the compensation is computed while deducting 1/5th from the income of the assessee which is estimated to be Rs.1500 per month, therefore, the income comes to Rs.1200 (Rs.1500-300=1200) after deducting self expenses. Thus the compensation comes to (1200 x 12 x 18) Rs.2,59,200. The appellant shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition.