Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 624 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Seeta

2011-03-23

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—These two misc. appeals have been filed against the common award dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ajmer in claim cases No. 62/2000 and 64/2000 awarding compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,09,000/- to the claimants of deceased Ramdeo and Rs. 5,14,000 to the claimants of deceased Kalusingh. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on 10.2.2000 deceased Kalu Singh and Ramdeo were going on Moped M-80 RJ 01 4 M 5610 towards Sabji Mandi Ajmer. At 9.45 a.m. Bus No RJ 17 P 0167 came with speed rashly and negligently and hit the Moped at Manila ITI college resulting in the death of Ramdeo and Kalu Singh on account of injuries received by them in the accident. Upon this FIR N0. 23/2000 was lodged at Police Station Adarsh Nagar. 4. Since the respondent No.l, who was driver of he bus inspite of giving several opportunities did not appear and contest the claim, the MACT drawn exparte proceedings against him. The respondent no.2 RSRTC filed reply to the claim petition denying the factum of accident. It was stated that the claimants are claiming compensation over and above their earning capacity. The RSRTC also took the objection that it was on account of negligence of the deceased persons that the accident occurred. 5. The MACT framed the issues. Recorded the evidence of the parties. After hearing both the parties passed the common awarded dated 25.11.2002 awarding the compensation mentioned above. Against this award granting compensation to the claimants of the deceased, these appeals have been filed by the RSRTC. On July 7, 2003, this court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the following order : "After hearing learned counsel for the parties for disbursement of the amount deposited by the appellant and taking into consideration the submissions made at the bar as also the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is partly allowed and after modifying the aforesaid order, it is directed that 50% of the deposited amount shall be disbursed to the claimants keeping in view the directions given by the Tribunal below in the award. Remaining 50-% of the amount deposited by the appellant shall be invested in F.D.Rs. Remaining 50-% of the amount deposited by the appellant shall be invested in F.D.Rs. For a period of one year in the Nationalised Bank in the name of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench so that the amount may fetch interest. The F.D.Rs. shall be deposited with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and neither the same would be got encashed nor any loan shall be advanced against these F.D.Rs. Without the orders of this Court. Send for the record." 6. The learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC has contended that the deceased himself was also driving the Moped in a negligent manner and as such it is a case of contributory negligence and as such compensation amount deserves to be reduced on this count in proportion of the negligence of the claimant. It was further argued that it is settled law that the charge sheet filed by the police authorities cannot be taken a sole evidence for holding that the driver was negligent and the MACT is required to give its own finding but the MACT merely on the basis of the fact that the driver has been charge sheeted has given the finding against the Corporation regarding issue No.l. While deciding issue No.3 the MACT has awarded a very excessive amount as compensation which cannot be said to be justified looking to the facts of this case. Regarding income of the deceased, the MACT without any evidence has assessed the income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. The income cannot be presumed more than Rs. 1800 per month. The amount awarded by the MACT is not supported by any documentary evidence and the MACT arbitrarily jumped to a wrong conclusion without any factual foundation. The multiplier of 17 adopted by the MACT is on very higher side. The MACT has deducted only Rs. 750/- towards personal expenses whereas it is settled law that one third amount ought to have been deducted. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent claimants opposed the appeals filed by the RSRTC. It has been argued that the MACT has rightly passed the award after taking into consideration the documents produced by the claimants and on the basis of the wages according to the minimum wages applicable at that time. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper and the appeals filed by the RSRTC deserve to be dismissed. It has been argued that the MACT has rightly passed the award after taking into consideration the documents produced by the claimants and on the basis of the wages according to the minimum wages applicable at that time. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper and the appeals filed by the RSRTC deserve to be dismissed. The appellant RSRTC only in order to avoid the payment filed these appeals and for that the respondent claimants are entitled exemplary cost from the appellant RSRTC as they had to engage advocates for contesting the appeals. Unnecessarily for the last 8 years, half of the award amount is lying in deposit before this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the findings arrived at by the MACT on all the issues. In relation to issue No.1 the MACT, observed as under : ^^mijksä ekSf[kd lk{; ds lanHkZ esa izys[kh; lk{; dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vfHkys[k ij is'k izn'kZ 2 vfHk;ksx i= foi{kh la[;k 1 eqLrkd vgen ds fo:) fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlds voyksdu ls tkfgj gksrk gS fd fnukad 10-2-2000 dks fo".kq flag us mä nq?kZVuk dh fyf[kr fjiksVZ izLrqr dh ftl ij izn'kZ 1 izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ dh xbZ vkSj foi{kh la[;k 1 dks blesa okn vUos"k.k varxZr /kkjk 279] 304, Hkk-na-la- dk nks"kh ikrs gq, mä vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA izn'kZ 3 uD'ksa ekSds ds voyksdu ls Hkh ;g Li"V tkfgj gksrk gS fd foi{kh la-1 xQyr ls gh nq?kZVuk gqbZ gSA izn'kZ 6 uksfVl /kkjk 133 ,e-oh- ,DV ds mÙkj esa Hkh oä nq?kZVuk foi{kh la-1 dk pkyd gksuk vafdr gSA izn'kZ 7 o 9 iksLVeksVZe fjiksVZ e`rdx.k jkenso o dkywflag dh gS ftuesa mudh e`R;q dk dkj.k mä nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ls gksuk crk;k x;k gS v-izk-la- 2 us vius mä izkFkZuk i= esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mä nq?kZVuk LFkku] fnukad dh iqfyl fjiksVZ ntZ gqbZ gS v-izk-la-1 eqLrkd vgen us Hkh viuh ftjg esa mä nq?kZVuk dk mlds fo:) eqdíek pyuk Lohdkj fd;k gS vr% mijksä foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g rF; lk{; esa iw.kZr;k lkfcr gS fd fnukad 10-2-2000 dks okgu jksMost vkj-ts- 17 ih 0167 ds pkyd foi{kh la-1 }kjk okgu dks rst xfr o vlko/kkuh ls pyk dj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ ftlds dkj.k jkenso o dkywflag dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZA** 9. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT. The MACT has rightly observed that the FIR in the case regarding accident was lodged by one Vishnu Kumar. The respondent No.l who is driver of the bus is facing trial before the criminal court for the accident caused by him. In the post mortem report, which is the document prepared immediately after the accident it was given out that the death of the persons was caused by the injuries received by them in the accident. The respondent No.1 in his evidence also accepted that case against him is pending regarding the accident took place on 10.2.2000. The MACT has rightly came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus, which was owned by the RSRTC. Thus the finding on issue No.1 is confirmed. The finding on issue no.2 is based on the finding of the issue No.1. The respondent No.1 was in the employment of the respondent No.2 at the time of accident. Thus the findings on both the issues stand confirmed. 10. Firstly, I may take up the appeal No.848/2003 filed by the RSRTC against the claimants of Ramdeo in relation to issue No.3. It was stated in the statement by the claimant that Ramdeo was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimants have not produced any salary certificate or proof in regard to earning of Rs. 5,000/- per month by the deceased Ramdeo. The MACT on the basis of the rates applicable in that year in the Minimum wages Act determined the monthly income of the deceased Rs. 100/- per day. In this manner Rs. 3,000/- per month was assessed as the income of the deceased Ramdeo. The MACT looking to the future prospects deducted only Rs. 750/- per month to be deducted for the amount to be incurred by Ramdeo on himself. I have considered the arguments of the RSRTC that the MACT only took deduction of Rs. 750/- instead of Rs. 900/- per month. I may add that the MACT has not taken any amount for future prospect, even the minimum wages have also been increased from time to time. Thus the finding of the MACT deducting only Rs. 750/- from Rs. 3,000/- is just and proper. 750/- instead of Rs. 900/- per month. I may add that the MACT has not taken any amount for future prospect, even the minimum wages have also been increased from time to time. Thus the finding of the MACT deducting only Rs. 750/- from Rs. 3,000/- is just and proper. The age of the deceased was estimated to be 32 years on the basis of the post mortem report and other evidence. For the age of 32 if the MACT applied the multiplier of 17 cannot be said to be unjustified. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC cannot be accepted that it should be on the lower side. The MACT by applying the multiplier of 17 calculated the amount of compensation to be Rs. 4,59,000/-. For the love and affection Rs. 15,000/- were awarded to the wife of the deceased and for the love and affection of father the children were granted Rs. 5,000/- each in this head Rs. 20,000/- were granted. Loss of expectation of life Rs. 10,000/- were awarded by the MACT. For cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In all Rs. 5,09,000/- were awarded to the claimants. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. Thus the issue No.3 was rightly decided in favour of the claimants awarding compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,09,000/-. 11. Now, I may take up the appeal No.849/2003 filed by the RSRTC against the claimants of Kalu Singh in relation to i:sue No.3. It was stated in the statement by the claimant that Kalu Singh was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimants have not produced any salary certificate or proof in regard to earning of Rs. 5,000/- per month by the deceased Kalu Singh. "he MACT on the basis of the rates applicable in that year in the Minimum Wages Act determined the monthly income of the deceased Rs. 100/- per day. In this manner Rs. 3,000/- per month was assessed as the income of the deceased Ramdeo. The MACT looking to the future prospects deducted only Rs. 750/- per month to be deducted for the amount to be incurred by Kalu Singh on himself. I have considered the arguments of the RSRTC that the MACT only took deduction of Rs. 750/- instead of Rs. 900/- per month. The MACT looking to the future prospects deducted only Rs. 750/- per month to be deducted for the amount to be incurred by Kalu Singh on himself. I have considered the arguments of the RSRTC that the MACT only took deduction of Rs. 750/- instead of Rs. 900/- per month. I may add that the MACT has not taken any amount for future prospect, even the minimum wages have also been increased from time to time. Thus the finding of the MACT deducting only Rs. 750/- from Rs. 3,000/-is just and proper. The age of the deceased was estimated to be 35 years on the basis of the post mortem report and other evidence. For the age of 35 if the MACT applied the multiplier of 17 cannot be said to be unjustified. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC cannot be accepted that it should be on the lower side. The MACT by applying the multiplier of 17 calculated the amount of compensation to be Rs. 4,59,000/-. For the love and affection Rs. 15,000/-were awarded to the wife of the deceased and for the love and affection of father the children were granted Rs. 5,000/- each in this head Rs. 15,000/-were granted. For the love and affection of brothers, the brothers were awarded amount of Rs. 5,000 each in total Rs. 10,000/-. Loss of expectation of life Rs. 10,000/- were awarded by the MACT. For cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In all Rs. 5,14,000/'- were awarded to the claimants. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. Thus the issue No.3 was rightly decided in favour of the claimants awarding compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,14,000/-. 12. The contention raised by the counsel for the claimant- respondents that the RSRTC unnecessarily filed appeal against the common award and after service of notices the claimants had to engage advocate and for the last more than 8 years half of the amount of the award was stayed by the order of this court and the amount is lying in deposit in the High Court. This request of the counsel for the claimant-respondents in both the cases is reasonable. This request of the counsel for the claimant-respondents in both the cases is reasonable. For engaging lawyer in the High Court and for keeping the amount in deposit unnecessarily in the High Court for long 8 years, the claimant respondents are entitled to get 10,000/- each as costs from the appellant RSRTC, in both these appeals. 13. For these reasons the misc. appeals deserve to be rejected and are hereby rejected. The common award dated 22.11.2002 in MACT cases No. 62/2000 and 64/2000 stand confirmed. The respondent claimants are entitled to costs of Rs. 10,000/-each in both these appeals. The stay orders passed by this court in both these appeals stand vacated. The amount lying in deposit may be disbursed to the claimants in view of the common award passed by the MACT Ajmer.