1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.525/1999 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. VS. Smt.Shanti Devi & Ors. Date of order : 19.10.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr.Sanjay Paliwal for Anil Bachhawat, for the appellant. Mr.B.R.Mehta, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: 1. 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 7.4.1999, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Claim Case No.8/96. 2. By impugned award, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of respondents (claimants) filed under Section 166 of the Act and in consequence awarded to them a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- by way of compensation for the death of 2 one Dinesh, who died in vehicular accident. 3. According to appellant, since the accident in question occurred due to claimant's own negligence and not due to negligence of driver of offending vehicle owned by appellant and hence the claim petition should have been dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss the appeal. In my opinion, the Tribunal was right in its reasoning and conclusion in allowing the claim petition and awarding the total compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-. 3. It is a death case. On 6.11.1995 deceased Dinesh a auto riksha driver and also engaged in business of sale of glossary items met with an accident while driving his auto riksha, which dashed with another vehicle – bus bearing No.RJ14PA4273 coming from opposite direction. Due to this dash, Dinesh and two occupants of auto riksha sustained injuries and later all the three succumbed to injuries. 4. It is this accident which gave rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives under Section 166 of the Act against the appellant (State Road Transport) and its driver claiming compensation for his death. It was contested by appellant by denying the material averments. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- to claimants by way of compensation. It was held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of Bus, 3 which is owned by appellant. It was held that deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month from his various sources. Deducting 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,25,000/- which included amount awarded towards consortium etc. to the claimants. It is against this award, the owner of Bus (State Road Transport Corporation) has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 5. Though learned counsel for the appellant made attempt to attack the finding relating to negligence of deceased and quantum of compensation, I am not impressed by both. In my view, it has no merit and hence the finding recorded by Tribunal on both the issues deserves to be upheld calling no interference resulting in dismissal of appeal. 6. Coming first to the quantum issue. It is held on appreciation of evidence and indeed rightly that deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month. I find no good ground to reduce this amount any more. It has come in evidence that deceased (Dinesh) was running glossary shop as also used to drive Auto Riksha for his livelihood. If a person is engaged in two business i.e. one in running a shop and other running auto, then it is easy for him to earn Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.3000/- per month. The deceased was hale and hearty. In these circumstances, it was rightly held that deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month. I accordingly uphold this finding calling no interference to reduce. 7. So far as deduction of 1/3rd is concerned, it is proper being in accordance with the established norms so also 4 applying of the multiplier of 18 for determining the compensation. This also does not call for any interference. 8. Coming next to the issue of negligence while driving the vehicle, which caused accident, I am of the view that Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence and held that accident occurred due to negligence of Bus driver. This finding is based on proper appreciating the manner in which accident occurred, it is based on spot map and averments made in FIR lodged by Bus driver. It is duly proved in evidence. The Tribunal rightly disbelieved the oral version of witnesses of non-applicant because the oral version was found contrary to what was mentioned in FIR. 9. In view of foregoing discussion, I am unable to notice any infirmity in the impugned award. As a consequence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No cost. (A.M. SAPRE), J. /tarun/