Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 394 (RAJ)

Mangej Kanwar v. Rahul Choudhary

2012-02-09

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 8th July, 2011 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur has decreed an amount of Rs.4,41,200/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Dissatisfied with the said amount of compensation, he has beseeched to enhance the same. 2. The facts of the case are that on 28th September, 2009 the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh Rajawat was going on a Motorcycle along with Mahendra Singh Rajawat a person of his acquaintance, from Dausa to village Potli. It is alleged that Mahendra Singh was riding the Motorcycle and the deceased Chandra Bhan Singh Rajawat was a pillion rider. He has further alleged that at about 8.30PM, no sooner did he reach near Potli Mod, one Santro Car bearing registration No.RJ-02-CA-1332 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently suddenly emerged at a high speed and hit the motorcycle from its back resulting into the death of Mahendra Singh Rajawat on the spot and injuries to pillion rider of the motorcycle. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the Tribunal had taken into consideration only Rs.3510/- to be the monthly income of the deceased, whereas he was earning Rs.5,000/- from Jaishree Shyam Colonyzers and Developers, Rs.6,000/- as commission on sale of plots and Rs.3,000/- from agriculture. The deceased was earning, in all, Rs.14,000/- per month, but the Tribunal arbitrarily considered only the minimum wages to be the income of the deceased prevailing at the relevant point of time. Hence, Rs.14,000/- per month income should be considered for the purpose of reckoning the loss of dependency. He further argued that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards the consortium, thus, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced and the award deserves to be modified accordingly. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and carefully scanned the impugned award, it is revealed that the claimants albeit, deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.14,000/- per month, but utterly failed to prove the same, by any documentary evidence. It is the claimant who is found to have asserted the fact of Rs.14,000/- to be the income of the deceased, hence, the onus also lies to prove the same on them. It is the claimant who is found to have asserted the fact of Rs.14,000/- to be the income of the deceased, hence, the onus also lies to prove the same on them. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the said income of Rs.14,000/-, the Tribunal rightly considered the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time to be the income of the deceased. Hence, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal in this regard. 5. Learned counsel further canvassed that no amount towards the consortium has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is wrong to say that the Tribunal did not take into consideration this aspect. A bare perusal of the award reflects that for the loss of consortium and love and affection of two children, total amount of Rs.15,000/- @ Rs.5,000/- each, is found to have been awarded while passing the said award. The impugned award rendered by the Tribunal is found to be perfectly just and apposite and suffers from no infirmity. I do not find any ground to interfere with the same and thus, the appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed in limine.