DESH RAJ Vs. MEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bikaner dated November 17, 1988 by which the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 3 have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,00. 0/- with interest at the rate of 12% P. A. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.

(2.) ON March 23, 1985, the deceased Mangilal met with an accident near the Orphanalge, Gajner Road, Bikaner. During these days, Mangilal was working as a Book Lifter in the Vaterinary & Animal Science College Bikaner. The case of the claimants is that the accident took place with the Jeep No. RRK 8970 which was being driven rashly & negligently by the appellant Desh raj and was belonging to the State of Rajasthan. The case of the opposite parties-appellants is that the accident was caused by a truck and the appellant Desh raj took the injured Mangilal to the hospital and brought his wife and mother from their home to the hospital. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the accident took place with the said jeep and not by a truck. It further held that the jeep driver Deshraj was driving the jeep rashly & negligently. It awarded Rs. 1,30,000/-as compensation with interest by its judgment under appeal.

(3.) IT was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Deshraj and the learned Deputy Government Advocate that he amount of compensa-tion awarded is very excessive. This contantion is also devoid of force. IT is well proved from the evidence on record that the age of Mangilal on the date of the accident was 32 years and he was serving as a Book Lifter in the Veterinary Science College, Bikaner, IT is further proved from the evidence on record that he was getting Rs. 750/- per month as pay, D. A. and other allowances. IT is not in dispute that the claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased. His widow Mst. Meera P. W. 9 has disclosed in her examination-in-chief that her son was born after two months of the accident. She ha % also disclosed that her husband used to spend almost all his earning on them, If Mangilal would not have died in the accident, he would have lived upto the age of at least 65 years i. e. , for 33 years more. Deducting the one-third amount from his earnings as expenses on himself, Rs. 500/- were being spent by him on the claimants. IT means that he was spending Rs. 6,000/- per annum on the claimants. As such award of Rs. 1, 30, 000/- as compensation cannot be said to be excessive or exhorbitant. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has been miser in awarding the compensation. IT has not awarded any amount towards the funeral expenses of deceased Mangilal. Loss of pension, gratuity and provident fund have also not been taken into consideration.