Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 247
2011(2) CCR 770 (Raj.)
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Seeta & Ors. (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
R.S.R.T.C.
Versus
Seeta & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 848 & 849 of 2003, decided on 23.03.2011
Virendra Agrawal, for Appellants;
Ms. Suman Shekhawat for Reasam Bhargava, for Respondent-Claimants
POINT DECIDED
Monthly Income of deceased determined on the basis of rate applicable in the year in the Minimum Wages Act
– Age 32 - Multiplier of 17 applied.
– Age 35 - Multiplier of 17 applied.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 163-A & 173 — R.S.R.T.C. Bus hit the moped — Death of both moped rider — Compensation Claim — Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,09,000/- and 5,14,000/- respectively in favour of claimants and against R.S.R.T.C. — Appeal by R.S.R.T.C. — Contention that accident occurred not solely due to negligence of bus driver — It is matter of contributory negligence as such compensation amount deserves to be reduced — Multiplier adopted by Tribunal is on very higher side and assessed income is of without evidence — Held — Record reveals that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of bus driver — Monthly income determined on the basis of rate applicable in that year in the Minimum Wages Act — Looking to the future prospects, Tribunal rightly deducted only Rs. 750/- for personal expenses — As per post-mortem report and other evidence, age of deceased is 32 and 35 years respectively, therefore, Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 17 — Thus, awarded amount cannot be said to be excessive — Contention of appellant rejected — Award confirmed — Claimants are entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- each as cost from appellant in both the appeals. (Paras 10 to 12)
Appeals rejected.
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 /kkjk 163-d ,oa 173 & fuxe dh cl us eksisM dks VDdj ekjh & nksuksa eksisM lokj dh e`R;q & izfrdj nkok & vf/kdj.k us nkosnkjksa ds i{k esa ,oa fuxe ds fo:) Øe'k% 5]09]000@& ,oa 5]14]000@& :i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & fuxe }kjk vihy & izfrokn fd nq?kZVuk dsoy cl pkyd dh ykijokgh ,oa xQyr ds dkj.k ugha ?kVh & ;g va'knk;h mis{kk dk ekeyk gS bl izdkj izfrdj jkf'k ?kVk;s tkus ;ksX; gS & vf/kdj.k }kjk viuk;k x;k xq.kd mPprj Lrj dk gS ,oa fu/kkZfjr vk; fcuk lk{; dh gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vfHkys[k izdV djrk gS fd nq?kZVuk cl pkyd dh ykijokgh ,oa xQyrh ds dkj.k ?kVh & ekfld vk; U;wure etnwjh vf/kfu;e esa ml o"kZ ykxw gksus ;ksX; nj ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh x;h & Hkkoh laHkkouksa dks ns[krs gq, vf/kdj.k us O;fäxr [kpZ gsrq flQZ 750@& :i;s lgh dVkSrh fd;s & 'ko ijh{k.k fjiksVz ,oa vU; lk{; ds vuqlkj e`rdksa dh vk;q Øe'k% 32 o 35 o"kZ gS vr% vf/kdj.k us 17 dk xq.kd lgh iz;qä fd;k & bl izdkj vf/kfuf.kZr jkf'k izfrokn fujLr dh & vf/kfu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh & nkosnkjx.k nksuksa vihyksa esa vihykFkhZ ls [kpsZ ds :i esa izR;sd 10]000@& :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA ¼in la- 10 ls 12½
vihysa fujLr dhA
2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on 10.2.2000 deceased Kalu Singh and Ramdeo were going on Moped M-80 RJ 01 4 M 5610 towards Sabji Mandi Ajmer. At 9.45 a.m. Bus No RJ 17 P 0167 came with speed rashly and negligently and hit the Moped at Manila ITI college resulting in the death of Ramdeo and Kalu Singh on account of injuries received by them in the accident. Upon this FIR N0. 23/2000 was lodged at Police Station Adarsh Nagar.
4. Since the respondent No.l, who was driver of he bus inspite of giving several opportunities did not appear and contest the claim, the MACT drawn exparte proceedings against him. The respondent no.2 RSRTC filed reply to the claim petition denying the factum of accident. It was stated that the claimants are claiming compensation over and above their earning capacity. The RSRTC also took the objection that it was on account of negligence of the deceased persons that the accident occurred.
5. The MACT framed the issues. Recorded the evidence of the parties. After hearing both the parties passed the common awarded dated 25.11.2002 awarding the compensation mentioned above. Against this award granting compensation to the claimants of the deceased, these appeals have been filed by the RSRTC. On July 7, 2003, this court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the following order :
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties for disbursement of the amount deposited by the appellant and taking into consideration the submissions made at the bar as also the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is partly allowed and after modifying the aforesaid order, it is directed that 50% of the deposited amount shall be disbursed to the claimants keeping in view the directions given by the Tribunal below in the award. Remaining 50-% of the amount deposited by the appellant shall be invested in F.D.Rs. For a period of one year in the Nationalised Bank in the name of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench so that the amount may fetch interest. The F.D.Rs. shall be deposited with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and neither the same would be got encashed nor any loan shall be advanced against these F.D.Rs. Without the orders of this Court. Send for the record."
6. The learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC has contended that the deceased himself was also driving the Moped in a negligent manner and as such it is a case of contributory negligence and as such compensation amount deserves to be reduced on this count in proportion of the negligence of the claimant. It was further argued that it is settled law that the charge sheet filed by the police authorities cannot be taken a sole evidence for holding that the driver was negligent and the MACT is required to give its own finding but the MACT merely on the basis of the fact that the driver has been charge sheeted has given the finding against the Corporation regarding issue No.l. While deciding issue No.3 the MACT has awarded a very excessive amount as compensation which cannot be said to be justified looking to the facts of this case. Regarding income of the deceased, the MACT without any evidence has assessed the income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. The income cannot be presumed more than Rs. 1800 per month. The amount awarded by the MACT is not supported by any documentary evidence and the MACT arbitrarily jumped to a wrong conclusion without any factual foundation. The multiplier of 17 adopted by the MACT is on very higher side. The MACT has deducted o
