Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1238 (RAJ)

Bhagwan Lal v. Kishan Lal

2012-05-11

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2012
RAFIQ, J.—Non-claimants have preferred this appeal seeking quashment of award dated 07.06.2008 of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota, in MAC Case No.341/2007 (317/2007), whereby learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,48,600/- as compensation to claimants for death of one Dinesh Kumar in road accident. 2. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that learned Tribunal while passing impugned award, did not consider rather ignored the evidence of non-claimant-appellants. There is specific evidence produced on behalf of appellants that deceased Dinesh died due to his own negligence and appellant driver was not at all responsible for the same. It is further contended that even if there was some negligence on the part of appellant driver, certainly deceased was also responsible for the accident and learned Tribunal has committed a gross error in not holding him contributory negligent despite evidence available on record. He lastly argued that amount of compensation is excessive and though appellants are not liable to pay the same but even if they are held liable, then it may be suitably reduced. It is therefore prayed that appeal be allowed with costs. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the award and prays for dismissal of appeal with costs. 4. I have heard learned counsel for appellants as well learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 5. There is evidence on record to show that at the time of accident there were fifty bags of grain loaded on the trolley attached with tractor and the deceased along-with his brother and other persons were sitting thereon. It was the duty of the appellant, who was driving the tractor, to have observed extra care while driving it. He should have not allowed those persons to sit thereon. Even if those persons, on their own sat thereon, then the driver should not have taken the tractor to its destination. From the site plan (Exhibit-5) it is clear that the way was not flat and it was uneven. In such circumstances, the driver should have observed extra care in driving the vehicle. There was a drain (nala) on the way and the tractor had to cross the same and in this process the trolley turned turtle and accident took place. From the site plan (Exhibit-5) it is clear that the way was not flat and it was uneven. In such circumstances, the driver should have observed extra care in driving the vehicle. There was a drain (nala) on the way and the tractor had to cross the same and in this process the trolley turned turtle and accident took place. Even if the driver permitted those persons to sit on the bags of grain loaded on the trolley, then before crossing the said drain (nala) it was his duty to get them descended from the trolley. Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the story of the appellants that it was deceased who climbed up the trolley with the help of rope which was encircled with the bags on the trolley and in this process the rope suddenly broke-off, which resulted into his death. Even if it is admitted that the deceased tried to climb up the trolley with the help of rope and in this process the rope suddenly broken-off, then the grain bags must have been fallen on back side of the trolley but from the site plan it is clear that the grain-bags were lying on both sides of the trolley. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly disbelieved the story of the appellants and it has committed no error in holding the appellants liable for the accident. 6. On the basis of documentary evidence, learned Tribunal accepted the age of deceased to be 28 years at the relevant point of time. Even in the postmortem report he is shown to 28 years of age. Deceased was a mason. Learned Tribunal, in absence of any documentary proof, did not accept the monthly income of deceased at Rs.6000/- as claimed by claimants but on the basis of minimum wages notified by the government, accepted his monthly income to be Rs.2,400/- and rightly deducted 1/3rd for his own expenses. Looking to age of deceased to be 28 years at relevant point of time, learned Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 18. Compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is befitting to the facts of the case. Findings recorded by learned Tribunal are based on oral as well as documentary evidence and do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 7. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is befitting to the facts of the case. Findings recorded by learned Tribunal are based on oral as well as documentary evidence and do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 7. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal itself, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.