1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shanker Das & Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.736/1999) DATE OF JUDGMENT : December 02, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS __________________________________________ Mr. Anil Bachhawat for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Mehta for the respondent(s). BY THE COURT : This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman, Jaipur, by which, judgment/award dated 18.01.1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Civil Misc. Case No.19/88 has been challenged. As per the facts of the case, on 26.07.1987, at about 8.25 P.M., deceased Bhagwan Das was 2 returning after worship at the Sanwaliyaji temple in his village Mungana and when he reached the road leading Udaipur from Kapasan, bus bearing No.RNP 1153 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No.4 came in the wrong side and hit Bhagwan Das. In the said accident, deceased Bhagwan Das sustained head injury and, in fact, his head was crushed under the front wheel of the bus. Parents of the deceased filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs.3,66,300/- for loss of income, loss of love and affection, so also, mental agony and funeral expenses. Learned MAC Tribunal issued notice upon the said claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased and appellant Corporation filed its reply stating that the accident took place due to negligence of deceased Bhagwan Das himself. After filing reply by the Corporation, learned Tribunal framed two issues and while deciding issue No.1 the Tribunal held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Roadways bus by its driver and, accordingly, while deciding the issue in respect of relief, passed 3 award of Rs.1,18,000/- as compensation against appellant Corporation and in favour of the claimant- respondents. In this appeal, while challenging the above award, it is submitted by the appellant Corporation that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. While challenging the adjudication made by the Tribunal upon issue No.1, it is submitted that as per statement of Nizamuddin, driver of the Roadways bus, when he was coming from Bhilwara to Udaipur while he was driving the bus No.RNP 1153, when he reached Mungana bus stand, at about 7.45 P.M., there was crowd outside the temple of Sanwaliyaji. At that time, a child suddenly came from the crowd and hit the Roadways bus at the rear wheel in the driver's side. He asked the villagers to take the child to hospital but the child had died. It is pleaded in the grounds by the appellant Corporation that statement of D.W.-1 Nizamuddin has not been properly considered by the Tribunal and wrong finding has been given that the accident took place due to 4 rash and negligent driving of the Roadways bus by its driver. In the FIR filed against the driver, he has been acquitted by the competent criminal Court, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted by the Corporation that the accident took place solely on account of negligence of deceased Bhagwan Das because he did not care, therefore, his negligence cannot be shifted upon the shoulders of the driver of the Roadways bus. In this view of the matter, the finding is totally contrary to the evidence on record and erroneous with regard to issue No.1. It is submitted by the Corporation that the Tribunal has erred while deciding issue No.2 in the manner the same has been decided. Compensation has wrongly been assessed because the deceased was labourer and used to earn Rs.30/- per day, that too is not certain and permanent, therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and dependency arrived at by the Tribunal which is on the higher side deserves to be reduced. According to the 5 appellant Corporation, the Tribunal has wrongly arrived at the finding that age of the deceased was 17 – 18 years and, therefore, lesser multiplier ought to have been applied. Further, for granting compensation under different heads for loss of love and affection, mental agony and expenses incurred in funeral, wrong assessment has been made, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. It is submitted on behalf of the claimant- respondents that finding arrived at by the Tribunal is based upon cogent grounds and claimants have proved by leading cogent evidence that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus of the Corporation by its driver. The finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus of the Roadways does not require any interference. Further, the finding with regard to issue No.2 that the claimants were having only one son and they suffered loss of income of Rs.2,60,000/- because age of their son was 17 – 18 years at the time of his death. In this view of the matter, the assessment of income of the deceased is also proper which does not require 6 any interference. I have considered the grounds taken by both the sides. In this case, the appellant Corporation is not disputing the accident but it is alleged by the Corporation that accident took place due to negligence of the deceased Bhagwan Das who was admittedly 17 – 18 years of age. It is also not disputed by the appellant that claimants are entitled for compensation but only ground is taken in this appeal that deceased himself was negligent and his income has wrongly been assessed by the Tribunal. In my opinion, when deceased was 17 – 18 years of age and age of claimants is 38 and 35 years respectively and Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs.750/-. The Tribunal has, therefore, not committed any error while holding that claimants suffered loss of income of Rs.500/- per month and Rs.6000/- per year. However, the Tribunal has granted award by multiplying with 16 only, therefore, it cannot be said that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. In this view of the matter, the finding with regard to issue 7 No.2 for assessing the income of the deceased does not suffer from any error and the same does not require to be interfered with. Similarly, under other different heads, I am afraid if any interference is made by this Court, then, certainly it will cause injustice to the parents of the deceased because deceased Bhagwan Das was the only son of the claimant- parents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned award. Consequently, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.