1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu on 20.07.96 in File No. 2557 Claims, whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- inclusive of the amount payable under no fault liability together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 24-3-95 till its payment has been awarded. The compensation has been ordered to be appropriationate in equal shares between the respondents.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the deceased Chuni Lal was going on bicycle from Bari Brahamana to Sarore bus stand on 23-2-95, when he was hit by bus bearing registration No. JKZ 491. This vehicle belonged to the appellant and was being driven by Warayam Singh-Respondent No.4 in this Appeal. Case of the claimants in the court below was that the accident in question was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle, which resulted in causing multiple injuries to the deceased, as a result of which, he died. Deceased was stated to be running a Cycle shop at Bus Stand, Sarore and his income was stated to be Rs.3000/- per month, in this background, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal below, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00lac. It may be clarified that the claim having been made in the sum of Rs.1.00lac before the Tribunal below is not in dispute. In the objections filed by the appellant and the driver-respondent No.4, it was pleaded that the accident was not on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver but was due to the acts of the respondents and contributory negligence was attributed to the deceased and thus, liability for payment of compensation was disputed.

3. On the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial of the following issues: -

1. Whether accident involving death of deceased cyclist Chuni Lal has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing registration No. 491 JKZ by its driver respondent No.1 on 23-2-1995?

OPP

2. In the event of proof of issue No.1 in the affirmative what is amount of compensation payable to the petitioners?

OPP

3. Relief.

4. Issues No. 1, 2 & 3 were decided in favour of the claimants and compensation as above noted was granted in their favour, hence this appeal at the instance of the owner of the vehicle.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had made an attempt to persuade the court in this appeal that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver. Reference was made to the evidence on record but when confronted with the evidence of eye witnesses PW Saleem Alam and Ram Pal, he was unable to persuade the court to take different view from the one taken by the Tribunal below, accordingly the findings recorded by the Tribunal under Issue No. 1 holding that the accident in question was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 4-driver, are upheld. 6. Next ground urged in support of this appeal was that Respondent No. 1 had made claim of Rs.1.00 lac whereas the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-, thus according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal below had fallen into error by granting higher compensation to the claimants/respondents 1 to 3. There seems to be substance in this submission. While assessing just and reasonable compensation, Tribunal was required to have taken note of the pleadings of the parties. But this has not been done as is dear from the admitted facts of this case.

7. Lastly, it was urged that the multiplier of 11 applied for calculating the compensation is grossly illegal, besides being contrary to law which holds the field as on date. According to the learned counsel, multiplier should not have been more than 4 to 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the award is within the brackets, as such it calls for no interference in this appeal.

8. In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document