PRASAD, J. - (1.) THESE three appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Udaipur, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE Motor Accident Tribunal while dealing with the accident in question dealt with different petitions. Appeals in question relate to accident Claim No. 366/92 and 367/92. THE Tribunal after consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that in Claim No. 366/92, injured Jagdish Yadav had received various injuries. His 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th rib was fractured. THEre was also a fracture of clevical bone of the right side. Right hand also got fractured. In the background of these fractures, the Tribunal awarded the claimant Rs. 85,000/ -. In Claim Case No. 367/92, a girl of 17 years Sumitra is reportedly dead. Her dependents have been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- by the Tribunal. The income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 2,000/- from teaching and stitching work. Rs. 1,000/- dependency was assessed for the claimants. A multiplier of 16 was applied. Against the award, appeals were preferred by RSRTC. The learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the appeal of the RSRTC relating to the case of Jagdish in Accident Claim No. 366/92. As regards Claim Case No. 367/92, the learned Single Judge in appeal reduced the amount of claim. Against this reduction the claimants have filed an appeal. The Corporation has also filed an appeal because it has felt aggrieved by the amount awarded by the learned Single Judge. First, we will take up the case of injured Jagdish Yadav. The appeal of R. S. R. T. C. against Jagdish Yadav arising out of the Claim No. 366/92 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the present appeal, the appellant R. S. R. T. C. only urge about the amount of compensation. Before proceeding to Judge the question of quantum, it may be worthwhile to mention here that one of the appeal filed by the RSRTC in the matter of the claim of Niranjan Lal Yadav arising out of the same incident has been decided by this court. It has been held in the case of Niranjanlal Yadav vs. R. S. R. T. C. (1), that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the employee of the Corporation. Therefore, the only question which has to be gone into in the present appeals is the extent of the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has also fairly conceded that he cannot now assail before this court the question of liability. The only thing he can urge is in relation to the quantum.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge of this court has observed in case of the injuries sustained by Jagdish Yadav that the claimant has sustained multiple fractures. THE injured has been hospitalised for a good number of days and the number of fractures necessarily required his absence from business. That being the position, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal does not require interference. THE amount awarded was not considered to be unreasonable and the Tribunal refused to interfere in the matter. THE corporation has asserted that the claim is on the excessive side. As the facts are obtaining on record. THEre are multiple fractures of the ribs. Hand and clevical has also been fractured. THE agony and absence from the work, if judged, from the point of view of the victim then a sum of Rs. 85,000/- does not appear to be a sum which is on the higher side. This court feels that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this regard is not liable to be disturbed, more particularly, in a Special Appeal. In view thereof, the appeal filed against the award in favour of Jagdish Yadav as maintained by the learned Single Judge has no force and is hereby dismissed. Now we take up the case arising out of Claim Petition No. 367/92. The award granted to the claimant in this claim was to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/ -. The learned Single Judge considered that the deceased was a girl and the normal presumption about a girl is that she gets married at 20 years of age and, therefore, the dependency cannot be expected to prolong. Only on this score, the amount awarded to the claimants was reduced from Rs. 1,92,000/- to Rs. 80,000/ -. The learned counsel for the Corporation urged before us that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered that a girl after marriage does not remain with the original family and the parents cannot be said to remain dependent on her for long time. In this background, the criteria adopted by the learned Single Judge that the Hindu ladies get married and loose connection with the original family should prevail with the court and therefore, the amount awarded even after reduced is higher. ;