1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** 1. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1171/2000 (RSRTC Vs. Husainuddin and ors.) 2. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.635/2000 (RSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yasin and ors.) 3. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1543/2000 (RSRTC Vs. Smt.Hamida and ors.) Date of Judgment : 18-08-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Virendra Agrawal, for the appellant-RSRTC. Mr.Sandeep Mathur, for the respondents- claimants. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these appeals have been filed on behalf of appellant-RSRTC challenging the quantum of compensation awarded as well as the point of negligence decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli vide judgment dated 28.1.2000 as against the bus driver of RSRTC. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the accident took place on 14.3.1998 between bus No.RJ-18P-480 driven by driver of RSRTC and jeep No.M-10A-3495 driven by driver Mohd. Yasin. The accident took place near Bhansi. The bus of the Corporation came suddenly from opposite direction in rash and 2 negligent manner and collided with the said jeep causing injury to Hussainuddin in CMA No.1171/2000, death of deceased Khatun in CMA No.635/2000 and death of Mohd. Salim Chauhan in CMA No.1543/2000 in the accident. 4. learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC submits that one CMA No.1177/2000 (claim case No.127/99) arising out of the same accident has already been disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this court vide judgment dated 7.9.2000 whereby challenge pertaining to contributory negligence at the part of jeep driver has been considered and the finding of the Tribunal was upheld on the point that accident took place entirely on account of rash and negligent driving at the part of bus driver of RSRTC bus. It is also submitted that there were seven claim cases pertaining to the accident in question and the RSRTC on the point of contributory negligence at the part of jeep filed only these three appeals and no appeal has been preferred in the rest of the claim cases and thus the finding of Tribunal on the point of rash and negligent driving has attained finality. The above position is not denied 3 by the learned counsel for RSRTC and, as such, the finding of the Tribunal on the point of rash and negligent driving entirely at the part of RSRTC has attained finality. That apart, Judgment passed by Coordinate Bench, referred to above, has also decided this point against the appellant RSRTC and, as such, this issue is not required to be decided in these appeals. CMA No.1171/2000 (claim case No.126/99) 5. In this appeal, RSRTC has challenged that excessive amount of compensation has been awarded as injured has been awarded total sum of Rs.1,93,000/- by way of compensation, while he had sustained 18.13% disability. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent- claimants submits that injured has sustained extensive injuries on his head and face in which his jaw was broken and bone below the eye was also broken and his eye-sight was reduced and he has to spend atleast Rs.1,00,000/- in his treatment and had to consult hospital at Pune for fracture and 4 admitted in hospital and was operated upon there. 7. The fact of extensive injuries stated above, stands corroborated by the evidence available on record and in view of above evidence, total amount awarded does not appear to be excessive and hence there is no substance in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant-RSRTC is dismissed. CMA No.635/2000 (claim case no.128/99) 8. This appeal pertains to the death of Mst.Khatun, aged 50 years for which a total sum of Rs.2,87,000/- was awarded as compensation. The deceased is survived by her husband, two sons and one daughter. The Tribunal has assessed income of Rs.30,000/- per annum as she was engaged in filling up quilts with cotton and a multiplier of 13 has been adopted. 9. The learned counsel for appellant-RSRTC has challenged the finding of Tribunal on the ground that dependency of deceased was not too much and, as such, amount deserves to be reduced. 5 10. Learned counsel for the respondent- claimants submits that deceased-lady was expert in making quilts and her earning is stated to be reasonable and that an appropriate multiplier has been used by the Tribunal and findings call for no interference. 11. In view of above, multiplier of 13 has been adopted taking into account the income of deceased to be Rs.30,000/- per annum and as such, amount awarded appears to be reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive. 12. Accordingly, the appeal of the RSRTC stands dismissed. CMA No.1543/2000(claim case No.124/99) 13. This claim petition has been preferred by the dependents of deceased Mohd.Salim Chauhan, who died in the accident and his dependents were awarded Rs.4,45,000/- by way of compensation. The deceased has left behind his widow, one son and one daughter, and old mother and the dependency is found 6 to be Rs.2000/- per month. He was engaged in dealing in metal scrap business. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC submits that the amount awarded is excessive while learned counsel for the respondent- claimants submits that deceased was 35 years of age and he left behind his widow, two minor children and old mother and no adult person was there to support his family and, as such, dependency has been assessed to be correct. 15. In view of above submissions, it is revealed that deceased died in the accident leaving behind widow, two minor children and old mother and, therefore, dependency assessed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. 16. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant-RSRTC is dismissed. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Sandeep/- item no.38-39-40