JUDGMENT :

1. Since the instant three appeals arise out of the same impunged judgment dated 15.9.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (herein-afterwards referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 55/2021 titled as (Smt. Charu Nahta & Ors. vs. Ramniwas & Ors.), they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3. In a road accident occurred on 22.4.2016 between Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No. RJ 19 TA 6558 and Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration No. RJ 21 PA 0593. Rajesh Nahta, who was travelling in the car died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. Claimants who are wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

4. After inquiry, the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition awarded Rs.1,20,18,945/- as compensation holding that both drivers are equally responsible for the accident and non-claimants nos. 1 to 6 i.e. drivers, owner and Insurance Company of car were made liable to pay the amount of compensation.

5. Learned Tribunal assessed the loss of income on the basis of income of deceased as mentioned in Certificate (Exhibit-24) and while calculating the monthly salary, house rent allowance and travel allowance were not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident to be 50 years and 2 months, applied the multiplier of 11 prescribed for the age group of 50-55. The deceased was in permanent job, therefore, future prospects was added to the income @ 15%, prescribed for persons of the age more than 50 years. Consortium @ Rs. 40,000/-was awarded to each claimants. However, learned Tribunal did not take into account the adult son of the deceased while determining the percentage for deducting amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 9% on the amount of compensation from the filing of claim petition till realisation subject to the provisions of Income Tax Act.

6. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (herein-afterwards referred to as ‘RSRTC’) filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 26/2022 on the grounds: That the learned Tribunal erred in recording the finding that driver of the RSRTC Bus was also rash and negligent in driving the Bus; Even if it is presumed that driver of the RSRTC Bus was negligent to some extent then also composite/contributory negligence of the Car driver was fastened much more than the negligence on the part of the Bus driver; and That the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive.

7. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (herein-afterwards referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), the insurer of the Car also filed appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 8/2022 challenging the impugned judgment and award on the grounds: That the accident was not the result of any negligence on the part of the Car driver, hence, the learned Tribunal was not right in fixing the liability on Car driver; that the claimants have concocted the facts and circumstances of the accident; that the deceased was not third party for the appellant; that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in awarding Rs.40,000/-to each claimants for loss of consortium is contrary to the settled principles of law; and that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is also contrary to the settled principles of law and the same is required to be modified.

8. On the other hand, the claimants prayed to enhance the compensation amount on the grounds being dealt with at appropriate stage.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. Regarding rash and negligent driving by driver of the Roadways Bus Ramniwas has been examined as D.W.1,