IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that claimants must provide sufficient evidence to establish negligence and income for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. This common judgment governs disposal of misc. appeals preferred by appellant/non-claimant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter, referred to as ‘Corporation’) and appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in MAC Case No.254/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,66,860/- in favour of claimants. The liability of satisfying the award was fastened upon non-claimants No.2 and 3 and the non-claimant No.1 i.e. driver of the offending bus was exonerated.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.42,32,500/- on account of death of their sole breadwinner, late Sh. Laduram, who lost his life in the accident. In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 that on 13.06.2012, in the morning at 11:00 am, Laduram was travelling in Roadways Bus (RJ-04-PA-1764) from Barmer to Baytu. In the said bus, deceased Laduram was standing on the gate of bus and when the said bus near Uttarlai, deceased fell down from the bus, as the gate was opened. The deceased sustained various injuries and owing to the same, he died during treatment on 26.06.2012 First information of the aforesaid incident was reported at Police Station Barmer, wherein after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against non-claimant No.2 for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.

3. After registration of the claim petition, summons were issued to the non-claimants and after receipt of the summons reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts and a prayer for rejecting the claim petition was made.

4. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues, which inter-alia reads as under :

5. In support of their claim, the claimant No.1 Smt. Parvati examined herself as AW.1 and in documentary evidence 21 documents were produced. The non-claimants despite being granted opportunity, did not lead any evidence, oral and documentary, in defence.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 proceeded to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation to tune of Rs.5,66,860/- in favour of claimants along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Corporation submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in partially deciding the issue No.1 against the appellant. He submits that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and the deceased himself was negligent, as he was standing near the gate of the bus and no independent eyewitness of the incident has been examined. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation further submits that the FIR of the incident was lodged after delay of three days. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation further submits that there was composite negligence, which vitiates the impugned judgment and award and thus the liability of compensation could not have been fastened only the Corporation. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation further submits that there was no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning and the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding 25% increased towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not relying upon Schedule attached to Section 163A of the Act, according to which if the income of the deceased is not proved, then annual income could be considered as Rs.15,000/- per year and not more than that. Learned counsel for the appellant also questioned the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation thus prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment impugned be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned