PANWAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 7. 4. 95 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar (hereinafter for short `the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- against the appellant and its driver respondent No. 8. Aggrieved by the award impugned, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter for short `the Corporation') has filed this appeal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated that facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that on 7. 2. 94 at about 7. 45 PM Rajendra Kumar was going on a cycle from Rawatsar to Sardarshahar. When he reached near to Mandi, at that time, bus No. RJ14/2892 came from opposite direction, which was driven by respondent No. 8 at a great speed, rashly and negligently hit Rajendra Kumar. Due to this accident, Rajendra Kumar fell on the ground and sustained injuries. He succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. Crime Report No. 34/94 dated 7. 2. 94 of this accident was registered with Police, who after usual investigation, filed challan against respondent No. 8. It was averred in the claim petition that the deceased Rajendra Kumar was young and healthy person of 25 years of age and he was running a dental clinic at Rawatsar by which his monthly income was Rs. 5,000/ -. In addition to this, he used to undertake the work of agriculture. It was also averred that the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. The claimants claimed Rs. 58,54,000/- in all under various heads. Before the Tribunal, the Corporation filed its written statement. The factum of accident was admitted but the negligence of the Corporation and its driver was denied. The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award came to the conclusion that the said accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the Corporation's bus by respondent No. 8, which caused the death of Rajendra Kumar and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- in favour of the respondent-claimants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was riding the cycle at a great speed and be seeing the Corporation bus coming from opposite direction, he could not control the cycle and ultimately collided with the bus and as such, it was the deceased who himself was negligent in making the accident. He further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the impugned judgment.
(3.) IN support of the claim petition, the claimants examined AW 1 Pushpa Devi, AW 2 Tara Chand, AW 3 Jaimal Singh and AW 4 Sheo Chand. They have placed on record the certified copies of F. I. R. Ex. 1, charge sheet Ex. 2, site map Ex. 3, site inspection memo Ex. 4, post-mortem report Ex. 5, certificate issued by Dr. Ram Prakash Chopra, Dentist and Medical Practioner Ex. 6, date of birth certificate Ex. 7 and the record of the clinic (patients' diary), which was maintained by the deceased containing Article Exhibits 1 to 141. In rebuttal, NAW 1 Shishpal and Naw 2 Amar Singh were examined. Aw 1 Pushpa Devi is widow of the deceased. She stated on oath before the Tribunal that her husband was a Dentist and was of 28 years of age. He was running a dental clinic. She further stated that her husband used to undertake agriculture work on theka for about 10 bighas of land and the annual income was about Rs. 50,000/ -. She has produced the patients' diary, which was maintained by the deceased in which names of various patients whom the deceased treated, were mentioned. She further stated that the deceased used to contribute Rs. 5,000/- p. m. and she alongwith her four children and parents-in-law were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. Aw 2 Tara Chand is an eye witness of the occurrence. He stated that he was going from Sardarshahar to Rawatsar in the bus owned by the Corporation, when the bus stated from Sardarshahar, the driver of the said bus was driving the bus at a great speed, rashly and negligently. There were good number of passengers in the bus. One Jaimal Singh also boarded the bus from Palu bus stand and was sitting by the side of him. He further stated that since the driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently, he and other passengers requested him to take care and to drive the bus carefully. Inspite of their request, the driver continued to drive the bus negligently and when it reached near to a cinema hall situated on Rawatsar road at that time a cyclist who came from opposite side was hit by the said bus. The cyclist was Rajendra whom he knew. He was running a dental clinic at Rawatsar. He further stated that due to this accident, Rajendra succumbed to the injuries. Aw 3 Jaimal Singh is also an occupant of the said bus and any eye witness of the occurrence. He also made a similar statement before the Tribunal. He stated that he boarded the bus owned by the Corporation from Palu. One Tara Chand was also the occupant of the said bus. The bus was driven by its driver at a great speed and negligently. He alongwith other passengers requested the bus driver to reduce the speed and drive carefully. When the bus reached near to a cinema hall situated at Rawatsar, at that time Rajendra who was coming on a cycle from opposite direction, was hit by the said bus Due to this accident, Rajendra succumbed to the injuries. He stated that the said accident was because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, while Rajendra was riding his cycle on the correct side of the road. He further stated that he knew Rajendra as he was Dentist. Aw 4 Sheo Chand is father of the deceased, who has proved the age income and occupation of the deceased. He stated that his son was 27-28 years of age and used to run a dental clinic at Rawatsar and also used to undertake agriculture work on theka of about 10 bighas of land. He used to earn annually Rs. 50000/- and Rs. 5 to 6 thousand per month from the dental clinic. He has also proved Art. 1 dairy which was maintained by his son deceased Rajendra. ;