This appeal against an Award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara, was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's award of Rs. 2,96,560/- as just and fair relying on Supreme Court precedents.
Leave to appeal refused; Impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal confirmed and appeal 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1805/2018
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur through Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Depot Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
All Caste - Bharadiya, Resident of Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara (Raj.)
……..Claimants
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Judgment
04/10/2018
By the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’), appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘Corporation’) has assailed impugned judgment and award dated 05.03.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara. Learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, while adjudicating claim of the respondent-claimants, under Section 166 of the Act, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,96,560/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
(2 of 4)
[CMA-1805/2018]
The facts, in brief, are that on 02.09.2013, vehicle of the Corporation driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit Harnarayan near Petrol-pump & Bus-stand, Bhilwara. Due to the accident, Harnarayan suffered grave and serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries same day during treatment. It is, in such circumstances, respondent-claimants being sons and wife of deceased Harnarayan, laid a claim quantifying total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,05,000/-. In the claim petition, it was, inter-alia, averred that at the time of death, Harnarayan was 70 years old and was having income of Rs.25,000/- per month from pension and interest. The claim petition is contested by appellant-Corporation by submitting its reply. Although driver of the vehicle, the fourth respondent, was also a party to the litigation, but no reply on his behalf was submitted.
Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled four issues for determination. In support of claim, Smt. Kamla, widow of deceased Harnarayan, appeared in the witnessbox and testified on oath. Besides that, ten documents were produced, which were exhibited. On behalf of appellantCorporation, driver of the vehicle appeared in the witness box but no documentary evidence was tendered. Learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, decided Issue No.1 pertaining to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle against the Corporation. Likewise, Issue No.2 is also decided in favour of respondentclaimants. While switching on to Issue Nos. 3 & 4, learned Tribunal, considering the age of deceased, has applied multiplier of 5 and after making 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses,
(3 of 4)
[CMA-1805/2018]
quantified total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,96,560/- for loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.4914/-. Besides awarding compensation for loss of dependency, learned Tribunal has also awarded 40,000/- for loss of consortium and 15,000/each to the sons of deceased for loss of love and parental affection. That apart, compensation for loss of property and funeral expenses was also awarded. In totality, a sum of Rs.2,96,560/- was awarded.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and award threadbare.
Upon perusal of impugned award, more particularly, the finding on Issue No.1 as well as Issue Nos. 3 & 4, in my opinion, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence. While deciding Issue No.1, learned Tribunal has considered requisite evidence in entirety for recording its satisfaction that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Corporation vehicle. It is also noteworthy that though the driver of Corporation vehicle has appeared in the witness box but he has not contested the claim and the Tribunal has proceeded ex-parte against him. Therefore, sans pleadings, his testimony in the form of proof cannot be relied upon. This sort of situation has per se exposed vulnerability of the defence of the Corporation. As regards Issue Nos. 3 & 4, suffice it to observe that the learned Tribunal, while making assessment of compensation, has relied on a decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi [2017 (13) Scale 12]
(4 of 4)
[CMA-1805/2018]
and the assessment of compensation is quite moderate, which cannot be categorized as excessive or exorbitant. In substance, the amount of compensation determined by learned Tribunal is just and fair within the prescribed criteria under Section 168 of the Act.
Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and
therefore, the same is hereby rejected.
(P.K. LOHRA),J
Bharti/32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be set aside on appeal.
Whether the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal was arbitrary or excessive.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay SethiRelied on¶26
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi [2017 (13) Scale 12]
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur
Mukesh S/o Late Shri Harnarayan
Anil S/o Late Shri Harnarayan
Smt. Kamla w/o Late Shri Harnarayan
Ratan Lal Sharma (Acharya)
P.K. Lohra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.K. Lohra
Parties & counsel
