1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.778/2004 The Chief Depot Manager, R.S.R.T.C. Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. Smt. Madna Devi & Others DATE OF ORDER : 27th MARCH, 2008 HON`BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore, for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the respondent. This appeal is against the common judgment and Award dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur in Claim Case No.113/99 and other claim cases arising out of the same accident. It is revealed from the record that on 7.9.1998 deceased-Birmaram was travelling with other co-passengers in roadways bus No.RJ-19P-2489 and the said bus was going from Jodhpur to Pipad City. The bus was being driven by Jagdish and at that time one another roadways bus bearing regn. No.RJ-19P-4036 was also coming from opposite side, which was being driven by Naina Ram at a high speed. It is revealed from the record that near Dangiawas, both the buses collided head-on with each other. It is also stated that the front 2 tyre of roadways bus No.RJ-19P-4036 got burst in the said accident and because of that accident Birmaram died and other co-passengers also sustained injuries. It is revealed from the record that in relation to the same accident other 25 claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur-I for awarding of adequate and proper compensation. The present claim petition No.113/99 was filed by Smt. Madna Devi widow and legal representatives of Birmaram for awarding compensation. It was stated in the claim petition that Birmaram at the time of the accident was aged 35 years and was earning near about Rs.3000/- per month and due to his untimely death in the said accident the claimants suffered huge monetary loss as well as received mental shock and on that count a compensation of Rs.18 lacs was sought. It is pertinent to note that in the said accident both the drivers of the roadways buses expired. The roadways took a stand in their reply that the said accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving by their respective drivers but occurred due to burst of tyre, that was an act of God, therefore, they denied the responsibility of paying compensation but the defence plea of roadways was discarded by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal held responsible the drivers 3 of both the roadways buses for causing the accident and by a common judgment and award after discussing the evidence with regard to the quantum of compensation in each cases, awarded compensation to the concerned claimants. As regards the present claim petition, a compensation of Rs.3,42,000/- in total was awarded alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and against the said judgment and award, the roadways has filed this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and award. Notices of this appeal was given to the respondent- claimants and the arguments were heard. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the respondent-applicant stated that with regard to the common judgment and award passed in other claim petitions arising out of the same accident, the roadways has also filed other appeals and they were dismissed whilst confirming the award passed by the learned Tribunal holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the part of drivers of the roadways and discarded their defence plea, therefore, to that extent, the contention raised by the appellant are not tenable 4 and they are estopped to raise the same. It was also contended that with regard to the quantum of compensation no serious contention has been raised by the appellant, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew my attention towards the judgment given by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.768/2004 decided on 19.11.2005 wherein the appeal filed by the roadways has been dismissed and the judgment and award passed of learned Tribunal has been maintained. Learned counsel for the Roadways agreed to this extent. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. The appeals filed by the roadways with regard to the same common judgment has been disposed of by this Court while confirming the order of the Tribunal. I have also perused the order dated 19.11.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.768/2004 wherein this Court has confirmed that the accident occurred due negligence on the part of the appellant-Roadways and the defence plea of appellant was discarded and the appeal was rejected. Considering these facts in the present appeal, same defence has been taken by the appellant, therefore, the defence plea is not acceptable and in 5 the light of the judgment given in the decided case, the present appeal is not sustainable. With regard to the quantum of compensation I have seen the finding of the learned Tribunal. It was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month but the learned Tribunal after considering evidence has taken the earning capacity as Rs.2000/- per month only and after deducting the usual 1/3rd for his own expenses and considering the age multiplied by 17 has determined the compensation amount Rs.2,85,600/- and other general damages. I have considered the amount of compensation that does not seem to be excessive. Considering these all aspects, I find no infirmity and illegality in the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellant-Roadways is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant- Roadways is dismissed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is confirmed. No order as to costs. (MANAK MOHTA) J. Sanjay/-