Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2612 (RAJ)

Manbhari v. Ayub Mehar

2019-09-26

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants claiming the following reliefs: It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, finding of rash and negligency may kindly be modified, it may kindly be held that ill-fated accident took place due to composite negligency of the driver of the bus bearing No.RSM 7297 and the driver of the Truck bearing No.RNJ 1749, owners and insurers of both the vehicles may kindly be held liable for making payment of compensation and the amount of compensation assessed and awarded may kindly be enhanced to the extent of amount claimed with interest at the rate 18% per annum from the date of application till realisation with costs throughout. Any other appropriate order which this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the accident in question had happened due to the bus (bearing registration No.RSM 7297), in which, deceased Mahaveer Lal was travelling, was hit by a Truck bearing No.RNJ 1749 from behind on 21.05.1988 at about 3:00 am. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that it is a case of composite negligence where the truck and bus both were negligent whereas the learned Tribunal has completely held the truck in question liable for the accident. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-Insurance Company, which was indemnifying the bus in question, submits that the testimony of sole witness ought not to be ignored by this Court as the sole witness Daulal has deposed that the bus was travelling at a slow speed, when it was hit from behind by the truck in question. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors.,2007 1 MACD(SC) 600 , relevant portion of which reads as under: 13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors.,2007 1 MACD(SC) 600 , relevant portion of which reads as under: 13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an Exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them. 6. Upon such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants restricted his submission to the enhancement of the award against the respondent No.4/non-claimant while computing the same as per the precedent law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157 . 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the firm view that the sole witness Daulal has deposed about a clear negligence on the part of the truck driver, and thus, the bus or bus driver or owner or insurer cannot be held responsible for satisfying the award in question. 8. This Court also takes note of the fact that on the application of the appellants, the service upon respondents No.1 to 3 was dispensed with on 11.09.2012. This Court, thus, conclude the appeal while directing learned counsel for both the parties to submit a joint calculation of the liability in the same set of facts as noted by the learned Tribunal. 9. Both the parties accordingly, furnished the following joint re-computation of the award in terms of precedent law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 9. Both the parties accordingly, furnished the following joint re-computation of the award in terms of precedent law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157 :- Age of the Deceased 35 Multiplier 16 Future Prospects 50% Personal Expenses Deducation Yearly Income of the Deceased Rs.14,478/- Yearly Income after adding Future Prospects Rs.21,717/- Yearly Income after deducting Personal Expenses Rs.16,287.5/- Total Income after applying Multiplier Rs.2,60,600/- Other Conventional Heads Rs.70,000/- Total Award Rs.3,30,600/- Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.1,61,848/- Enhanced Compensation. Rs.1,68,752/- 10. In view of the above and in light of the precedent law of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the respondent No.4 Ayub Mehar shall be alone liable to pay enhanced compensation of Rs.1,68,752/- as granted, which shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is made. The enhanced amount is to be paid within two months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after two months from today) till actual payment is made. 11. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.