Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Union Of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Madat Ali & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 183/2017
Decided on : 18-02-2021
Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, for the Appellant; Mr. LD Khatr, for the Respondent.
A housewife is entitled to 'just compensation' in the event of her death in a motor accident.
Headnote:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM - SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 110-A OF EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 168 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - The court upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the appellants' truck caused the accident and awarded compensation to the respondents-claimants. The court also held that the deceased, who was a housewife, was entitled to 'just compensation' and that the Tribunal rightly computed the award taking into consideration the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, non-claimants, appealed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer, which awarded compensation to the respondents-claimants for the death of Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu in an accident involving the appellants' truck.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal correctly recorded the finding on Issue No. 1 in view of the evidence brought before it. The court also found that the Tribunal rightly computed the award taking into consideration the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants' truck caused the accident? 2. Whether the Tribunal rightly computed the award taking into consideration the income of the deceased? 3. Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the testimony of eye-witnesses and the police investigation report to conclude that the appellants' truck caused the accident. 2. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kirti and Another Etc. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to hold that the deceased, who was a housewife, was entitled to 'just compensation'. The court also found that the Tribunal rightly computed the award taking into consideration the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident. 3. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. to hold that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was not excessive.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/non-claimants against the Judgment and Award dated 02.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer in M.A.C. Case No. 04/2014 whereby an amount of Rs. 9,67,955/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the respondents-claimants on account of death of Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu in the accident which occurred on 20.08.2013.
2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants awarding a total sum of Rs. 9,67,955/- in their favour.
3. Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, learned counsel for the Union of India has vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are incorrect. He further submits that in fact, no accident occurred with the vehicle of the appellants. In fact, the death of Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu was caused due to motor-cycle having been overrun on the divider and therefore, the truck of the appellants was falsely implicated in the present case just to claim the compensation. He further submits that even as per the site plan prepared by the police during the course of investigation conducted in the criminal case, it has come on record that there were no signs of the accident at the place of accident shown in the site plan. There were no bloodstains present on the place where the accident had taken place. Learned counsel emphatically submitted that even on the vehicle of the appellant there were no dent, no damage or scratch marks present. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the army truck was not involved in the accident at all. He also submits that as per the memo of appearance of the death of Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu (Ex.P/5), no injury marks were present on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu was not conducted just to avoid the true story of the accident. On the strength of the submissions made, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 is incorrect.
4. He also submits that it has come on record that deceased Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu was a house-wife, whereas, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of the fact that she was working as a casual labour and thus, the computation of the award, while considering the deceased as casual labour is also incorrect.
5. Lastly, he submits that the rate of interest i.e. 9% awarded in the present case is also on the higher side and the same is also required to be reduced considerably.
6. Per contra, Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Tribunal has correctly recorded the finding on Issue No. 1 in view of the evidence brought before it. The Tribunal correctly appreciated the testimony of Madat AN (A.W. 1) and Kasam Khan (A.W. 2) and other relevant documents produced before it. Learned counsel while supporting the finding on Issue No. 1 has submitted that while Madat AN and Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu were standing on the road waiting for taxi, the appellants' truck which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed Bhanwari @ Madu due to which she sustained grievous injuries and ultimately died. As per the site plan and the investigation conducted, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the military truck and not only this, the army truck itself was also intercepted by the police authorities immediately after the accident. The FIR was also registered on the same day. Learned counsel further submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, the same require no interference in view of the appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1.
7. Learned counsel submits that even if it is assumed that Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu was a house-wife she is entitled to 'just compensat
