Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 332 (RAJ)

Beena Kapoor v. Hari Singh

2012-02-07

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement against the award dated 27.8.1994 passed in MAC No. 46/1990. 2. The claim petition was filed by the claimants- appellants on account of death of Shri Kamal Das Baijal in an accident occurred on 27.8.1989. The present appellant No. 1 is the wife of deceased, appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the children and the appellants Nos. 5 and 6 are father and mother of the deceased. 3. The brief facts of the case according to claim petition are that on 27.8.1989, deceased Shri Kamal Das was going from Jaipur to Ajmer in Maruti Car No. RNX 6896. Smt. Prabha Jain, Rohit Jain and Rishi Kapoor were also traveling with deceased Kamal Das. At about 1.30 pm, when the car reached near Aakashwani Kendra on Gagwana Bye-pass, a truck bearing No. GTT 4379, driven rashly and negligently by driver Gurdeo Singh, hit the car on the wrong side and due to this collusion, Shri Kamal Das and others received injuries and died in Ajmer Hospital. The driver of the truck also expired during the pendency of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,70,000/- but at the same time, it has been held vide issue No. 2 that the deceased was also negligent and the liability has been bifurcated on truck driver and deceased. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record, specially the impugned judgment and award. 5. The contention of the present appellants is that the truck driver along was negligent. The FIR was lodged by PW.1 Iqbal and there was no reason for discarding his evidence, Site plan Ex. P/25 also goes to show that the truck came on the wrong side, whereas the car was going on its right side and hence in liability could have been fastened on the deceased. 6. It is also submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was 43 years of age and hence a wrong multiplier has been applied and the compensation has been assessed by using lesser multiplier. It has also been submitted that the income of the deceased has also not been rightly calculated. 7. 6. It is also submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was 43 years of age and hence a wrong multiplier has been applied and the compensation has been assessed by using lesser multiplier. It has also been submitted that the income of the deceased has also not been rightly calculated. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the liability and the compensation. 8. Learned Tribunal has considered the material facts and taking note of the site plan Ex.P/35 and mechanical report Ex.P/34, it was revealed before the learned Tribunal that it was a head on collusion. There is no doubt about the fact that at the relevant place, the width of the road is 23 ft. and it has also been considered by the learned Tribunal that the accident took place in middle of the road and hence it has been concluded by the learned Tribunal that it was an accident due to composite negligence of both the vehicles. In another petition, filed by the legal heirs of another deceased Rohit Jain, it has been stated that deceased Kamal Das was driving the vehicle on very high speed and at the same time the truck was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and due to high speed of both the drivers, vehicles became uncontrolled and head on collusion took place. Ex.P/34 also goes to show that it was a case of head on collusion and it has been specifically stated in Ex.P/34 that Maruti car entangled in truck from its front side. Evidence of PW.1 lqal has also been considered by the learned Tribunal. Hence, learned Tribunal has considered the relevant evidence and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that due to negligence of both the vehicle drivers, the accident took place and hence there is no need to interfere with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. 9. It has also been stated by the wife of the deceased that the deceased was working in Merchant Navy but she has admitted in her evidence that her husband was not in regular employment and he was on contract basis. The learned Tribunal has considered the income, age and other relevant factors to assess the compensation. 10. 9. It has also been stated by the wife of the deceased that the deceased was working in Merchant Navy but she has admitted in her evidence that her husband was not in regular employment and he was on contract basis. The learned Tribunal has considered the income, age and other relevant factors to assess the compensation. 10. It has also been submitted that the deceased was earning his income in dollars and it should be converted into Indian currency and they only compensation should have been calculate, but this argument is unsustainable as the currency of every country has its own purchase power. 11. The learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency of the family as Rs. 1,30,000/- per annum and looking to the age of deceased multiplier of 10 has rightly been applied and other statutory compensation has also been awarded. 12. Hence, the award of compensation just, fair and adequate. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.