Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1599 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Jethi

2022-05-17

RAMESHWAR VYAS

body2022
JUDGMENT : RAMESHWAR VYAS, J. 1. The aforesaid four appeals are being decided by this common judgment as the same arise out of common Judgment and Award dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First, Jodhpur, in Claim Case No. 720/2012 (NCV No. 1930/2014) titled as Smt. Jethi and Others vs. Ghanshyam Singh and Others and Claim Case No. 561/2012 (NCV No. 1929/2014) titled as Smt. Raju Devi and Others vs. Ghanshyam Singh and Others. 2. In Claim Case No. 720/2012 the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,36,808/- and in Claim Case No. 561/2012. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 10,03,696/- as compensation in favour of the claimants on account of death of Premaram and Omprakash alias Omaram, respectively, in an accident. 3. CMA Nos. 776/2018 and 1050/2018 have been filed by the appellant-R.S.R.T.C. owner of the offending bus, challenging the award impugned on the ground that the Tribunal erred in recording the finding that driver of the Roadways vehicle was liable for rash and negligent driving. The alternative plea of the appellant-RSRTC is that the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is excessive. On the other hand, CMA Nos. 623/2018 and 633/2018 have been filed by the claimants, who are legal heirs of deceased Premaram and Omprakash, seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in their favour on the ground that the Tribunal erred in not accepting income of deceased Premaram and Omprakash @ Rs. 12,000/- per month and in awarding compensation on the basis of minimum wages of Rs. 3,822/- per month (for unskilled labour) and Rs. 4,342/- per month (for skilled labour), respectively. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2012 at 6.00 P.M. when deceased Omprakash and Premaram were going from Bhikamkor to their village on Motor-cycle No. RJ-22-3M-4774, they met with an accident with Roadways Bus No. RJ-19-1P-0887. Omprakash was riding Motor-cycle, whereas, Premaram was pillion rider. They were going in their correct direction from Bhikamkor towards Phalodi. The bus was coming from opposite direction. The driver of the Roadways Bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Motor-cycle. Resultantly, Premaram died on the spot, whereas, Omprakash died during treatment in the hospital. At the time of accident, age of deceased Omprakash was 31 years, whereas, deceased Premaram was 24 years of age. 5. The driver of the Roadways Bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Motor-cycle. Resultantly, Premaram died on the spot, whereas, Omprakash died during treatment in the hospital. At the time of accident, age of deceased Omprakash was 31 years, whereas, deceased Premaram was 24 years of age. 5. As per averments made in the claim petitions, the deceased Omprakash was employed as Supervisor in M/s Hariom Construction Company and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month; deceased Premaram was working as Operator on the Marble Cutting Machine in M/s Sanchal Marble, Phalodi and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. There were total 7 dependents of deceased Omprakash and the dependents of deceased Premaram were shown 6 in number. The Tribunal while recording finding of rash and negligent driving by Roadways Bus driver, awarded compensation in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 . Aggrieved with the same, these appeals have been preferred by the RSRTC as well as claimants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgment impugned. 7. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the fact of accident between Motor-cycle and Roadways Bus is not in dispute. Regarding issue of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Roadways Bus, eye-witness Prakash (AW-3), produced on behalf of the claimants, categorically stated that Ghanshyam Singh, driver of the Roadways Bus No. RJ-19-1P-0887, while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner collided with the Motor-cycle, which was coming in its correct side, on account of which, Premaram died on the spot, whereas, Omprakash died during treatment in the hospital. He further stated that at the time of accident, bus dragged Motor-cycle upto 50 steps. In cross-examination also, he stated that Omprakash was going towards Phalodi in his left side. He lodged the report at Police Station Osian. He denied suggestion of the opposite party that Omaram was driving Motor-cycle in the middle of the road. The Roadways Bus driver Ghanshyam Singh (NAW-1) and conductor Chaturbhuj (NAW-2) were also produced before the Tribunal. As per their statements, accident took place while Motor-cycle was overtaking another Roadways Bus. He lodged the report at Police Station Osian. He denied suggestion of the opposite party that Omaram was driving Motor-cycle in the middle of the road. The Roadways Bus driver Ghanshyam Singh (NAW-1) and conductor Chaturbhuj (NAW-2) were also produced before the Tribunal. As per their statements, accident took place while Motor-cycle was overtaking another Roadways Bus. However, NAW-1 Ghanshyam Singh, in his cross-examination admitted that above fact was not mentioned in reply to the claim petition. The statement of Prakash (AW-3) finds corroboration with the contents of F.I.R. The Tribunal after noticing the entire evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Roadways Bus i.e. Ghanshyam Singh. There is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant-RSRTC. There is sufficient evidence available on record to show that the Roadways Bus driver was responsible for this mishappening. 8. Regarding quantum of compensation, after perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the same has been passed in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The Tribunal having regard to the age of both deceased, applied correct multiplier. In the case of Omprakash, multiplier of 16, applicable for the age group of 31-35 was applied for assessing loss of income, whereas, in the case of Premaram, who was 24 years of age, multiplier of 18 prescribed for age group of 21-25, was applied. 9. Regarding deduction towards personal expenditures of the deceased, 1/5th amount from income of deceased Omprakash and 1/4th amount from income of deceased Premaram was deducted by the Tribunal in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 10. So far as award of future prospects of the deceased are concerned, the Tribunal has appropriately added 40% amount to the income of deceased Omprakash and Premaram while calculating compensation under the head of loss of income. 11. Regarding income of both deceased, from perusal of the record, it reveals that no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove income of the deceased, hence, the Tribunal did not commit error in assessing the compensation on the principles of minimum wages of a labour prevailing at that point of time. 11. Regarding income of both deceased, from perusal of the record, it reveals that no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove income of the deceased, hence, the Tribunal did not commit error in assessing the compensation on the principles of minimum wages of a labour prevailing at that point of time. In the case of deceased Omprakash, his income was assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled labour @ Rs. 4,342/- per month, however, in the case of deceased Premaram, loss of income was assessed on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled labour @ Rs. 3,822/- per month. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no basis to distinguish the case of deceased Omprakash from the case of deceased Premaram. Hence, loss of income in the case of deceased Premaram is liable to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages for a skilled labour i.e. @ Rs. 4,342/- per month. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC that the compensation awraded by the Tribunal is excessive, is not tenable. The compensation amount in the case of deceased Omprakash is just and fair, whereas, amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the case of deceased Premaram is liable to be enhanced as follows: Annual Income Rs. 52,104/- After adding 40% towards future prospects (Rs. 52,104 + 20,842) Rs. 72,946/- Less 1/4th towards personal expenses Rs. 54,709/- Multiplier to be applied 18 Loss of dependency (Rs. 54,709 x 18) Rs. 9,84,762/- Add under conventional expenses (Rs. 70,000 + 10%) after every three years Rs. 77,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 10,61,762/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 9,36,808/- Enhanced amount Rs. 1,24,954/- 14. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, CMA Nos. 776/2018 and 1050/2018 preferred by the appellant-RSRTC as well as CMA No. 633/2018 preferred by legal heirs of the deceased Omprakash @ Omaram are dismissed. 15. CMA No. 623/2018 preferred by legal heirs of deceased Premaram is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs. 1,24,954/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, from the non-claimants jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount. The claimants are entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs. 1,24,954/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, from the non-claimants jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount. The said amount shall be deposited by the respondent-RSRTC within a period of four weeks from today. After depositing the same, the Tribunal shall disburse it to the claimants in terms of the judgment and award dated 20.11.2017. 16. The original record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.