1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.256/2008 Smt. Jaiti Devi & Ors. vs. Harvindra Singh & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.256/2008 Smt. Jaiti Devi & Ors. vs. Harvindra Singh & Ors. Date : 26.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Rajendra Charan, for the appellants. Mr.AK Dadhich ) for the respondents. Mr.R Matoria ) - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sri Ganganagar in MACT Case No.94/2007 whereby the Tribunal deducted 50% of the claim amount on the alleged count of contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident caused by the respondent Harvindra Singh. The grievance of the appellants is further that the Tribunal committed serious error of law by rejecting the claim for the appellants no.2 to 4 on the ground that the appellant no.4 is married daughter of deceased and appellants 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.256/2008 Smt. Jaiti Devi & Ors. vs. Harvindra Singh & Ors. no.2 and 3 are major having age of 28 and 23 years respectively. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no amount of compensation has been awarded to the appellant no.1 wife of the deceased for loss of consortium. The appellants no.2 and 3 have not been awarded any compensation because of love and affection of their father. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The deceased wife stated that his husband Ram Lal died in the accident when he was going on the motorcycle which was driven by Ram Pratap. The police in investigation found that it was a case of gross negligence of the driver of the bus no. RJ 13P-2037 driven by the respondent Harvindra Singh. Those documents were placed on record by the claimants wherein the site map was also produced. From the site map itself, it is clear that there could not have been any negligence of the driver of the motor cycle. Except the evidence of the driver of the bus, there is no 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.256/2008 Smt. Jaiti Devi & Ors. vs. Harvindra Singh & Ors. evidence to corroborate the statement of the said witness. The respondents' witnesses are interested witnesses and their word of mouth cannot be accepted as the last word and sufficient evidence to rebut the documentary evidence produced by the claimants obtained from the independent investigating agency. In fact, the Tribunal failed to give any reason for holding that there was contributory negligence of the person who was driving the motorcycle upon which the deceased was riding. In view of the above reason, the finding of the Tribunal holding fault of the driver of the motorcycle is set aside. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to full amount of compensation of Rs.1,76,000/- in place of 50% of the amount. The Tribunal further committed error of law by denying the compensation to the appellants no.2 and 3 only on the ground that they are major and denied the compensation to the appellant no.4 on the ground that she is married daughter of the deceased. The Tribunal also committed serious error of law by not awarding compensation to the appellant no.1 for loss of consortium and to the appellants no.2 to 4 for loss of love and affection to their father. 4 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.256/2008 Smt. Jaiti Devi & Ors. vs. Harvindra Singh & Ors. Looking to the totality of the facts, the appellant no.1 is awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of loss of love, affection and consortium of her husband whereas the appellants no.2 to 4 are awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- each on account of loss of love and affection of their father. Since the appellant no.1 is an old lady and, therefore, she needed more amount to be given as compared to the appellants no.2 to 4, therefore, out of the total compensation, the appellant no.1 will get 70% of the amount whereas the appellants no.2 to 4 will get 10% each of the amount apart from the amount awarded for these appellants personally referred above. In view of the above, it is held that the appellants are entitled to the total amount of compensation of Rs.1,76,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.45,000/- = Rs.2,46,000/-. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest from 29.9.2006 at the rate of 7.5%, the rate which was awarded by the Tribunal. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya