The High Court dismissed an appeal and cross-objections against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award granting Rs. 4,87,800 compensation. The court upheld the finding of composite negligence and rejected claims for enhanced compensation.
The appeal and cross-objections for enhancement of compensation were rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
1.10.2012
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Virendra Agarwal for the appellant RSRTC. Mr. Mahendra Agarwal, for the claimants in both the cases.
The appeal No. 1380 of 2006 has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short MACT) against the award dated 8.2.2006 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge No.7 ) Jaipur City, Jaipur (in short MACT) in MACT case No.193/2004 whereby claim petition of the claimants was allowed and they have been granted compensation in the amount of Rs.4,87,800/-. After service of notice the claimants have filed cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section 151 CPC for enhancing the compensation. It would be appropriate for this court to decide the appeal and the cross objections by this common order.
2
1336 and Bus No. RJ 14 P 4540 when the deceased was travelling in the Maruti Van. The claimants stated that Dharamveer was going in Maruti Van which was being driven by Hira Lal and was owned by Mahadev and the said Van was hit by bus belonging to the RSRTC and it was being driven by Mahendra Kumar Sharma rash and negligently and as such the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the bus and hence they filed the claim petition. It was stated that if the MACT comes to the conclusion that the driver of the Maruti Van was also negligent then the claim may be awarded against both the vehicles and as such the insurer of the Maruti Van was also impleaded as party. The said claim petition was later on transferred to the Court of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Additional District Judge No.7 ) Jaipur City Jaipur where it was registered as claim case No. 193/2004. The FIR to the incident was also lodged at Police Station Dausa bearing FIR No. 119/98 which was lodged by Mahendra Kumar, the driver of the bus of the RSRTC and after investigation police authorities filed charge sheet against the driver of Maruti Van holding him sole negligent.
3
and as such the same cannot be disbelieved and particularly when the police authorities also filed charge sheet agaisnt the driver of the Maruti Van holding him sole negligence hence the finding of the MACT in respect of issue No.1 is erroneous. The only eye witness produced by the claimants is Pawan Kumar Garg who also sustained injuries in the same accident and as such he was an interested witness and hence there was no reason to disbelieve the charge sheet and FIR which have been produced by the claimants themselves and thus the MACT has committed serious error in holding that the driver of the bus was also negligent to some extent. The learned counsel has further argued that there was no evidence on record to show the negligence of the driver of the bus then the question of giving direction to make liable the RSRTC to the extent of 50% of the awarded amount does not arise and the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. There was no evidence on record to show the income of the deceased even then the MACT has assessed the income to be Rs. 3600 per month without any documentary evidence. The multiplier of 16 adopted by the MACT is on very higher side looking to the fact that law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation vs. R. Rajapriya. The interest awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition is wrong and it should be from the date of passing of the award.
4
Finance and Investment Ltd. and as such his income even in absence of any documentary evidence could not have been reckoned as the income of a skilled worker. The MACT has failed to appreciate that the age of the deceased was 34 years only and there was every possibiloity of his future prospects of rise. The deceased expired after 25 days of the accident in the Hospital and he and his family suffered physical as well as mental agony for this period of 25 days after the incident for which he was hospitalised. No compensation has been awarded by the MACT on account of physical and mental agony. The interest awarded is 6% per annum but it should be 9 % per annum. Lastly it was prayed that the compensation awarded may be increased.
“ उपरोक्त मोिखक सा�य के ख�डन म� िवपक्षीगण की ओर से कोई सा�य प्र�तुत नही की गई है एंव द�तावेजी सा�य के �प म� पत्रावली पर एक्जी -1 चाजर्शीट , एक्जी -2 फदर् जि� मा�ित वैन एक्जी 8 व 9 एम आई मा�ित वैन व बस रोडवेज , एक्जी 12 मा�ित वैन का आर / सी प्र�तुत िकये गये है। इन सभी द�तावेजात को देखने से यह �प� होता है िक उक्त दुघर्टना म� मा�ित वैन व रोडवेज की बस दोनो ही अ�तरिल� रहे है िजनका मैकेिनकल मुआयना कराया गया है , रोडवेज बस चालक ने घटना की िरपोटर् दजर् कराइ है िजस पर िवपक्षी संख्या -1 हीरा लाल के िव�द्ध चाजर्शीट पेश हुई है , गवाह पवन कुमार ने सा�य म� हीरालाल की वाहन चलाने म� गलती नही होना कथन िकया है । पत्रावली पर उपल�ध सभी त�य� एंव पिरि�थितय� को देखते हुए यही माना जाये गो िक उक्त दुघर्टना म� िवपक्षी संख्या 1 व 4 दोनो ही की गलती एंव लापरवाही से उक्त दुघर्टना कािरत हुई हे िजसम� धमर्वीर की मृ�यु हो गई। मा�ित के रिज�ट�शन प्रमाण पत्र से िवपक्षी संख्या 2 का मा�ित वैन का �वामी होना प्रमािणत होता है तथा
5
पत्रावली पर आई सा�य से िवपक्षी संख्या 4 का रोडवेज का चालक होना �प� होता है
“6
the claimants was allowed and they have been granted compensation in the amount of Rs.4,87,800/is rejected and the cross objection filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation also stands rejected.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA )J.
OPPareek/
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been
incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed
(O P Pareek)
PS-cum JW
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in holding composite negligence of both the bus driver and the van owner.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants requires enhancement.
Whether the interest awarded by the lower court was calculated from the correct date.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Claimants
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court