Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2568 (RAJ)

Mangli Bai v. Lala @ Lalaram

2011-11-24

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 9.10.2002. By the impugned judgment, gross injustice has been done by the Tribunal to the claimants. The Tribunal has merely relied on the minor contradiction in the statement of AW-2 Abdul Gaffar where he stated that the accident was of Sakranti, whereas this very witness in the last line of his examination-in-chief has stated that the accident had taken place on the day of Amavasya/Poornima. Admittedly this witness had no knowledge as to what is the day when the moon is not visible and what is the full moon day, thus he was himself confused but that was not a reason for the Tribunal to get confused by relying on the testimony of such a witness. According to the appellants, the accident took place on 6.12.1999 and even if one were to go by the statement of this witness AW-2 Abdul Gaffar, he stated that the truck hit a person who was crushed by its tyre and then the truck was halted at the place of accident itself and the police was called. FIR, Ex.1 has been lodged on the day of accident itself i.e. on 6.12.1999 at 11.30 AM wherein the number of the truck was given as RJ 20G 1003. This FIR was registered by Police Officer Asu Singh of Police Station Kotwali, Baran which corroborates what has been stated by Abdul Gaffar that an unknown person was crushed over by the truck and his head and private part of the body have been completely crushed. It was a Tata Truck No.RJ 20G 1003 which has been stopped by the people at the place of incident. The rear tyre of the truck and mudguard on the cleaner sie, i.e. the left hand side indicates the fresh marks of the blood. The site plan, Ex.3 of the accident was prepared on the very same day i.e. on 6.12.1999, which corroborates what has been stated in the FIR. The inquest report Ex.4 of the dead body was prepared on 6.12.1999. The postmortem report Ex.5 is on record. The seizure memo of clothes of the dead body is Ex.6. Ex.7 is the document by which the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased Kalyan and his widow Mangli Bai. The inquest report Ex.4 of the dead body was prepared on 6.12.1999. The postmortem report Ex.5 is on record. The seizure memo of clothes of the dead body is Ex.6. Ex.7 is the document by which the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased Kalyan and his widow Mangli Bai. The mechanical inspection report of the vehicle is Ex.8. Notice u/s.133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the owner of the vehicle, which is Ex.9 on which the reply has been given by the owner stating that he had employed Lala @ Lalaram as the driver in the said truck and on the day of accident, he was carrying fertilizers in the truck. Seizure memo of the truck is Ex.10, which is prepared on the same day of accident i.e. 6.12.1979 wherein it is clearly stated that the truck was carrying the begs of fertilizers. It had fresh blood marks on the cleaner side i.e. the left hand side, how possibly in the face of all these voluminous evidence, the Tribunal could have dismissed the claim petition, is difficult to apprehend. 2. Shri Rishi Pal Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the findings of the Tribunal are just and perfectly justified. AW-2 Abdul Gaffar was the witness of the claimants themselves and therefore the finding of the Tribunal cannot be fault in relying on the testimony of that witness. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court proceeds to now compute the quantum of compensation that is to be paid to the claimants. It is asserted in the claim petition and also been supported by statement of AW-1 Mangli Bai that deceased was doing the work of denting and painting. In the claim petition, it has also been asserted that he used to earn a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, however, that much of the income has not been proved but the very fact that he was doing the work of denting and painting, placing his salary above the normal labourer and Court can presume his earning to be at least Rs.3,000 per month. The age of the deceased was 32 years and on that age the multiplier of 16 and 1/5th deduction towards self expenses for 7 dependents as per the judgment passed in Sarla Verma & Ors. The age of the deceased was 32 years and on that age the multiplier of 16 and 1/5th deduction towards self expenses for 7 dependents as per the judgment passed in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC) is applicable. Thus the amount is computed at Rs.4,60,800 (3000x1/5 = 2400x12x16). The widow is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium and each of the five children are entitled to Rs.5,000 for loss of love and affection i.e. Rs.25,000. Further an amount of Rs.5,000 is awarded for funeral and transportation charges for carrying the dead body. An amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the motor of the deceased for loss of love and affection. The appellants are thus held entitled to an amount of Rs.5,20,800 (4,60,800 + 20000 + 25000 + 5000 + 10000 As compensation. They are also entitled to interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 9.3.2000. The payment of compensation be made within a period of two months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondent-insurance company. The appeal is accordingly allowed.