Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 963 (RAJ)

Radhey Shyam Heda v. Abdul Mazeed

2011-05-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Both the misc. appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 3.5.2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the learned Tribunal'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.9.1999 at about 5.30 p.m. while Vishnu Kant was going towards Ajmer from Nasirabad in Car No. RPZ-2421 the car was hit by road-ways bus No. RJ-010P-0822 coming from opposite side. Vishnu Kant and Archit died on account of aforesaid accident. Manish traveling with the deceased also sustained injuries. 3. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants respondents filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award. Hence, these two misc. appeals and one cross-objection before this Court. Facts of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1454/2002 : 4. Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submits that the judgment/award to the extent indicated hereinabove is liable to be quashed and set aside being contrary to facts and law applicable under it and the award requires to be modified with respect to issue Nos. 2 and 6; The learned Tribunal has committed an error on facts and law by assessing the dependency of only Rs. 1,000/- and also committed error while applying multiplier factor. the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection as well as expectation of life towards misc. expenses to respective claimants and the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation has failed to consider the aspect of future aspect. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal be quashed and set aside to the extent it is challenged and consequently the claim petition moved by the appellants may kindly be allowed in terms prayed for. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents non-claimants has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned award after properly appreciating the evidence submitted by both the parties. Hence, the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned tribunal need no interference of this Court. Facts of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 01579/2002 : 6. Hence, the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned tribunal need no interference of this Court. Facts of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 01579/2002 : 6. Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submits that the judgment/award to the extent indicated hereinabove is liable to be quashed and set aside being contrary to facts and law applicable under it and the award requires to be modified with respect to issue Nos. 2 and 6; The learned Tribunal has committed error on facts and law by assessing the dependency of only Rs. 6,000/- and also committed an error while awarding amount towards loss of the car which was damaged to the extent that it was not repairable. Car could not have been fetched only Rs. 6000/- in case it is sold out. Awarded amount is very meager one. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside to the extent it is challenged and consequently the claim petition moved by the appellants may kindly be allowed in terms prayed for. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents non-claimants has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned award after properly appreciating the evidence submitted by both the parties. Hence, the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned tribunal need no interference of this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondent and the learned counsel appearing in the cross-objection. 9. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also after carefully scanning the entire material made available to me, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 10. In the result, both the misc. appeals are devoid of merits and stand dismissed after confirming the award dated 3.5.2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer.