Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 269 (RAJ)

Mumtaj Begam v. Ajjijuddeen

2013-02-01

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal have been filed against the award dated 5.5.2007 passed by judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribubnal Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in M.A.C.T. case No. 35/2005 whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation in the amount of T 4,45,000/- for the death of Mirajul Islam. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except whereever necessary. 3. Brief facts relating to this case are that on 29.1.2005 Shri Mirajul Islam, Smt. Mumtaj Begam, Juber Ahmed and Sudeep Datta were going from Delhi towards Ajmer by Indica Car No. DL-3-C-U-9528. When this car reached in front of Hotel Rose, a Bus No. RJ-19-1-P-0871 which was being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver came and hit the India car. Because of hit Smt. Mumtaj Begam, Juber Ahmed and Sudeep Datta sustained serious injuries and Shri Mirajul Islam died. The claimants filed claim petition before the M.A.C.T. The respondent No. 1 the driver of the but did not appear before the M.A.C.T. however, ex-parte proceedings were done against him. The respondent No. 2 the owner of the bus contested the claim and filed its reply. On the basis of the pleadings of the both the sides issues were framed and statements of witnesses were recorded. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the M.A.C.T. decided issues 1, 2 and 4 in favour of the claimants. While deciding issues 3 and 5 the M.A.C.T. awarded merely a sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- to the claimants along with 6 per cent interest. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants has argued that the M.A.C.T. has manifestly erred in awarding merely a sum of Rs. 4,45,000/-. The deceased at the time of death was aged 33 years and he was running N.G.O. named as Green Asam Society, used to earn about Rs. 5,000/- per month. The M.A.C.T. erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- and his contribution towards the family as two third of it. The M.A.C.T. has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. A very low multiplier of 17 was applied. Under the head of consortium a very low amount was awarded. The M.A.C.T. has also erred in awarding 6 per cent interest. The interest should have been 12 per cent. 5. The M.A.C.T. has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. A very low multiplier of 17 was applied. Under the head of consortium a very low amount was awarded. The M.A.C.T. has also erred in awarding 6 per cent interest. The interest should have been 12 per cent. 5. The learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. has argued that the findings of issues I and 4 are absolutely illegal, perverse and contrary to the recorded. The M.A.C.T. has erred in holding that the accident in question occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the R.S.R.T.C. because there was ample evidence on record showing that the driver of the Indica car was negligent. The driver of the R.S.R.T.C. bus appeared in witness box and stated that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle negligently and was responsible for the accident and as such there was no reason to fasten the inability upon the R.S.R.T.C. Considering the contributory negligence of the car driver, 50% of the awarded amount deserves to be deducted. While deciding issue No. 3 the M.A.C.T. has awarded excessive amount as compensation. 6. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the award passed by the M.A.C.T. The counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. has seriously only contested that the driver of the Indica Car was negligent and at least contributory negligence should be considered and 50% amount of compensation should be deducted. The M.A.C.T. in relation to issues I and 2 in Para No. 12 held as under: " 12- bl izdkj ls izkFkhZx.k dh mDr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fnukad 29-1-05 dks foi{kh la0 1 vthtqnhu us jksMost cl la0 vkj0ts0 19 1ih 0871 dks rst xfr ,oa ykijokgh ls vizkFkhZ la0 2 ds fu;kstu esa jgrs gq, pyk dj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh vksj bl nq?kZVuk esa izkFkhZ eerkt csxe] tqcsj vgen o lwnnhi nRrk ds pksVs dkfjr gqbZ rFkk fejktqy bLyke dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZA vr% ;g fook|d izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa mijksDrkuqlkj fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA " 7. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the M.A.C.T. on issues I and 2. In relation to issue No. 4 the M.A.C.T. held that the driver was in the employment of the R.S.R.T.C. and hence driver and the R.S.R.T.C. jointly held liable for compensation. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the M.A.C.T. on issues I and 2. In relation to issue No. 4 the M.A.C.T. held that the driver was in the employment of the R.S.R.T.C. and hence driver and the R.S.R.T.C. jointly held liable for compensation. In relation to issue No. 3 the M.A.C.T. has disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses as no documentary proof regarding his income was produced. Considering the minimum income of ? 3,000/-, the M.A.C.T. considering the multiplier of 17 awarded Rs. 6,12,000/- and out of it one third was to be incurred by the deceased for himself a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- were deducted. In this manner a sum of Rs. 4,08.000/- were awarded towards income. For love, and affection Rs. 5,000/- each were awarded to mother, wife, and three children-and for cremation a sum of Rs. 2,000/- were awarded for transportation of body to Asam a sum of Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. In all Rs. Rs. 4,45,000/- were awarded. This amount cannot be said to be unreasonable. The finding arrived at by the M.A.C.T. is just and proper. The appeal filed by the claimants being devoid of merit stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******