Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2262 (RAJ)

Jarina v. Madan Lal

2018-12-06

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Prakash Gupta, J. - Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim petition No.325/2015 (147/2014), whereby, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,72,120/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Appeal No.33/2017 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation while appeal No.6718/2016 has been filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). 3. Since both the appeals are directed against the same judgment and award, therefore, they are being decided together. 4. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the non-claimants on account of death of Shri Zakir Husain, who allegedly died in the Road Accident, which allegedly took place on 23.06.2014. As per the claimants, the deceased was riding a motor cycle. The motor cycle of the deceased was hit by bus No. RJ-12-PA-0971 coming from the opposite direction which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. In the claim petition, it was stated that deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident and he was working as a driver and was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. In the claim petition, compensation was claimed to the tune of Rs. 1,39,91,000/-. The tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,72,120/- as compensation. Hence, these appeals. 5. So far as the appeal No.6718/2016 is concerned, it was the contention of the learned counsel for 'the Corporation' that there is no evidence on record which proves that the bus of 'the Corporation' was involved in the alleged accident. It is also submitted that Nane Khan was not an eye witness to the accident. Zahir Mohammad (AW-3) and Faiz Mohammad (AW-4), who alleged to be the eye witnesses to the accident were also not in fact eye witnesses to the accident. The learned tribunal has committed serious error in relying the testimony of the said witnesses. Therefore, the issue Nos.1 and 2 were wrongly decided against 'the Corporation'. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the appeal filed by 'the Corporation' and supported the judgment of the learned tribunal on issue No.1 and 2. The learned tribunal has committed serious error in relying the testimony of the said witnesses. Therefore, the issue Nos.1 and 2 were wrongly decided against 'the Corporation'. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the appeal filed by 'the Corporation' and supported the judgment of the learned tribunal on issue No.1 and 2. So far as the appeal filed by the claimants are concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that no future prospects was awarded by the tribunal in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the future prospects of the deceased should have been awarded to the claimants by the tribunal. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. So far as the appeal of 'the Corporation' is concerned, I find no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for 'the Corporation'. After perusing the statements of Zahir Mohammad (AW-3) and Faiz Mohammad (AW-4), this Court is of the opinion that both the said witnesses had indeed witnessed the accident and there is nothing in their cross-examination, which can shake the credibility of their statements made in examination-in-chief. Further, the driver Madan Lal (NAW-1) of the offending bus had not denied in his testimony the fact that the offending bus was not involved in the accident. However, he stated that accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. Therefore, from the testimony of NAW-1 Madan Lal himself, the involvement of the bus is proved and no further evidence is required to be considered in this regard. 9. In the light of above discussions, the appeal filed by 'the Corporation' has no merit and the same is dismissed. 10. So far as the appeal of the claimants is concerned, admittedly, the accident was occurred on 23.06.2014. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,980/- per month. However, the tribunal did not award any compensation towards future prospects of the deceased, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. 10. So far as the appeal of the claimants is concerned, admittedly, the accident was occurred on 23.06.2014. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,980/- per month. However, the tribunal did not award any compensation towards future prospects of the deceased, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), an addition of 40% is liable to be added towards future prospects of the deceased as he was aged about 39 years at the time of accident, which comes to Rs. 1,992/-. Thus, the income of the deceased assessed by the tribunal as Rs. 6,972/- (4,980+1,992). Keeping in view the number of dependents, one fifth of the said income is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of 15 would be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants. In this way, compensation comes to Rs. 10,03,968/- (6,972 x % x 12 x 15). The claimants would be further entitle to receive Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs. 10,03,968+70,000 =10,73,968/- 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 22.09.2016 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimant is Rs. 10,73,968/- instead of Rs. 8,72,120/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment with the Tribunal within a (6 of 6) [CMA-33/2017] period of two months from today. It is ordered that the share of the enhanced amount of the compensation shall be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank initially for a period of 2 years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the claimants on monthly basis.