1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.293/1998 Managing Director, RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Alla Bux & Ors. Date of order : 3.8.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. V.K.Mathur with Ms.Khushoo Soni and Mr.Anil Bachhawat, for the appellant. Mr. U.C.S.Singhvi, Mr.M.A.Bhurat, Mr.S.K.maheshwari for Mr.Sunil Mehta, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: 1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other four connected appeals being C.M.A.No.292/98, 294/98, 300/98 and 95/2002 because firstly all the first four appeals arise out of common award (except C.M.A.No.95/02) and secondly arise out of one accident. So far as C.M.A.No.95/2002 is concerned, though it arise out of same accident but came to be decided later in point of time as against other four claim cases out of which other four appeals arises. It is for this reason, all the 5 appeals are consolidated together for their analogous disposal by common order. 2 2. This is a misc. appeal filed by owner of offending vehicle (State Road Transport Corporation) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short called “the Act”) against an award, dated 3.12.97, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur in Claim Case No.8/96. 3. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of claimants filed under Section 166 of the Act and in consequence awarded a total sum of Rs.1,42,000/- to the claimants for the death of one Rajab Ali, who died in vehicular accident. 4. In this appeal, the appellant has essentially raised two questions, first is that Tribunal erred in holding that accident was caused due to negligence on the part of driver of the appellant's Bus. According to appellants, firstly accident did not occur due to negligence of driver of the Bus and secondly assuming that it occurred then it was partially due to negligence of appellant's driver and partially due to negligence of driver of jeep in which deceased and other persons were travelling. In other words, the appellant pressed in service the principle of contributory negligence on facts and evidence. Secondly, the Tribunal erred in awarding excessive compensation to the claimants for the death of Rajab Ali. According to appellant, it should be reduced to some extent so as to make it a just one. It is these two questions, which are pressed in service by the appellants while assailing the legality and correctness of an award. 5. On 15.8.95 , Rajab Ali, Abdul Shakur, Abdul Wahid, Mohd.Rafiq and driver Mohd.Sayyid were going in one Jeep bearing No.RJ/21/C/1396 from Ajmer to Basni. It is at that time one Bus belonging to Roadways (appellants) bearing 3 No.CH/7756/RJ14/P/4648 which was coming from opposite direction dashed to Jeep in which these four were travelling. Due to dash, all the four and one Mohd.Rafiq i.e. deceased involved in CMA No.95/02 died. It is this event, which gave rise to filing of 5 claim petitions by the legal representatives of 5 deceased named above under Section 166 of the Act out of which these appeals arises claiming compensation for the death of aforementioned persons. It was contested by non-applicant (appellants) essentially contending on facts that negligence was that of driver of Jeep and hence no liability of any nature arising out of accident can be fastened upon the appellant. 6. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and in consequence awarded to respective claimants the compensation in the light of each deceased's age, status and income etc. It was held that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of Bus and hence, the appellants being the owner of the Bus (a State Road Transporter) are liable to pay the compensation to each claimants. It is against these respective awards passed in each claim case and common finding so far as negligence is concerned, the owner of the offending Bus has felt aggrieved and filed these appeals. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of evidence adduced, I am inclined to dismiss the appeals as in my view, the Tribunal was right in its appreciation, reasoning and eventual conclusion in partly allowing the claim petitions of each claimants. 8. At the outset I may say that on perusal of evidence and the finding recorded by Tribunal, since I concur with the finding of Tribunal on the point of negligence and hence I do not 4 wish to again refer to version of each witness and then record of my own finding of affirmation. In my view, when the Appellate Court feel inclined to uphold the finding of trial Court on appreciating the whole evidence denovo then it is not necessary to again detail the whole evidence so also set out its own finding. 9. Suffice it to say, the Tribunal was quite conscious of the defense on the point of negligence and keeping in view the issue raised, the Tribunal in great detail discussed and then appreciated the whole oral as well documentary evidence. It is only then a categorical finding was recorded that driver of Bus was responsible for causing the accident and not the driver of the Jeep. 10. I too have undertaken the exercise of appreciating the evidence on this issue and as observed supra, find in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. 11. Coming now to the quantum of compensation awarded in each matters separately i.e. CMA Nos. 293/98, 294/98, 292/98 and 300/98, the deceased in each case were young boys between the age group of 17 to 26. In all these cases, the compensation awarded was Rs.1,42,000/-, Rs.1,34,000/-, Rs.1,34,000/- and Rs.1,59,200/- to the claimants for the death of these young boys. 12. In my considered view, no case whatsoever is made out either-way for enhancement or for reduction at the instance of appellant and claimants (respondents). The compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- and like the amount as mentioned above awarded in other 3 claim cases for the death of young boy of 18 years and above is a just one even in 1995. It does not call for any reduction. Indeed, as on days, the courts have been awarding more 5 compensation between Rs.1.50 lakh to Rs.2 lakh in child death cases. In this case, all the deceased were young between the age of 18 to 26. It is for these reasons, I do not consider it proper to reduce the award of compensation any more. 13. Coming to the appeal No.95/02, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,45,000/- for the death of one Mohd.Rafiq, who died in the same accident. Though in this case, a prayer is made by filing cross objection by claimants for enhancement of compensation but having regard to all facts and circumstances, such as age of deceased (27), the nature of work (carpenter) done in his life time and other relevant factors, no case for reduction or enhancement is made out in this appeal/cross-objection though argued at length by the learned counsel for the parties. I am satisfied that what has been awarded by Tribunal is just and proper calling no interference on facts/evidence. 14. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals are held to be devoid of substance. All are accordingly dismissed so also the cross-objection filed in C.M.A.No.95/2002. No cost. (A.M. SAPRE), J. /tarun/