Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2400 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Indra Devi

2011-11-09

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
RAFIQ, J.—These two appeals have been preferred by appellant RSRTC against the common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh, Alwar dated 5.8.2011. The claim petitions were filed in respect of death of two persons namely; Suresh Chand Saini and Pooran Mal Saini. While Suresh Chand Saini was driving the motor cycle, Pooran Mal was sitting as pillion rider. The learned Tribunal has in the claim case No.75/2010 filed by the claimants for the death of Pooran Mal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,27,000 as compensation and in claim petition No.76/2010 filed by the claimants for the death of Suresh Chand has awarded Rs.5,32,000/-. 2. Shri Deepak Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant has made two fold submissions. His first submission is that deceased were riding the motor cycle without helmet. They died due to their own negligence as they were driving the motor cycle at a very high speed and did not slow down at the speed breaker and due to jump that occurred on account of speed traffic, they fell down and died on their own death. It has been denied that the accident has taken place due to the bus of the appellant. Learned counsel in order to bring all these points referred to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in paras 10 to 17 while dealing with issue No.1 and 2 and also from paras 18 and 19 on issue No.3. It was argued that the statement NAW-1 Shyam Sunder driver of the vehicle has not been properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. This witness has stated that the bus of the appellant was not involved in the accident. The bus was parked on the left side of the road at Malkhera Byepass Bus Stand and the passengers were getting down, suddenly a truck came from front side and behind that there was a motor cycle. There was a speed breaker there, as a result of which the deceased who was riding a motor cycle, fell down and died instantly. It was stated by the said witness that the Unit Incharge of the Depot, Jai Dev in response to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has wrongly mentioned that accident took place due to the vehicle of the appellant. 3. It was stated by the said witness that the Unit Incharge of the Depot, Jai Dev in response to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has wrongly mentioned that accident took place due to the vehicle of the appellant. 3. The learned trial Court has examined this argument made by learned counsel for the appellant and it has not believed the statement of driver NAW-1 Shyam Sunder, but has rather preferred to believe NAW-3 Heera Lal, who was an eye witness. This Heera Lal who was in no manner related to either of the deceased, has stated that he was sitting towards western side of the road. The bus was going from southern to northern side. The injured has received injuries from left side of the bus. There was a speed breaker, but it was 30-40 feet away from the place of incident. This witness has stated that the bus did not slow down at the speed breaker. The motor cycle was at a very reasonable speed of 20-30 kms/hour on the correct side. The learned trial Court has analysed the entire documentary evidence including the site plan Ex.2 and the seizure memo of bus Ex.3. It is found that the jali (front net) of the bus was found damaged with a dent. There were blood stains of the deceased on that net. Hairs of the head were also found pasted on the net. The bumper of the bus was also having dent from the driver's side. There were marks of damage on the right side. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the bus was proved from black pant, which was found to be contained on it, as a result of being hit by the bus. Ex.4, the seizure memo of the motor cycle also indicated that the shockers of both sides and the rim of the rear wheel of the motor cycle were damaged. Ex.7, the motor cycle inspection report of the motor cycle indicated that the motor cycle was completely damaged due to being hit by full side. The learned Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that in response to notice u/s.133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Jai Dev employee of RSRTC has admitted the factum of accident by the bus. Ex.7, the motor cycle inspection report of the motor cycle indicated that the motor cycle was completely damaged due to being hit by full side. The learned Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that in response to notice u/s.133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Jai Dev employee of RSRTC has admitted the factum of accident by the bus. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased themselves cannot therefore be accepted, which is therefore rejected. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the deceased has been accepted on higher side. It has wrongly been accepted that they may have been earning a sum of Rs.3,750 on the basis of the fact that daily wage was at least Rs.125/- per day. Perusal of the impugned award indicates that the evidence before the Tribunal was that deceased were into the business. They had their own shops. The deceased Suresh Chand was a truck mechanic and Pooran Mal Singh was also a mechanic. They were running “Saini Engineering Workshop”. The claimants contended that monthly income was Rs.14,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has treated them as skilled labour and on that basis proceeded to hold the income to be Rs.125/- per day. Holding so, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for their own expenses, thus accepted the factum of dependency to the extent of 2/3rd only. This is how the computation of compensation has been made by applying the multiplier of 17 in both the cases considering the fact that Pooran Mal Saini was 26 years old and Suresh Chand Saini was 29 years old at the time of accident. 5. I do not find any infirmity in the approach taken by the learned Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs.5,27,000 and Rs.5,32,000 respectively. The appeals being devoid of any merits are accordingly dismissed.