- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short-'RSRTC') aggrieved by the award dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur whereby the claimant respondents have been awarded a compensation of Rs.4,67,000.
(2.) Shri V.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the vehicle of the appellant-RSRTC has been falsely shown involved in the present case, whereas it was some private bus and realising the fact that the bus did not have the insurance, the claimants have manipulated the matter by showing involvement of the bus of appellant-RSRTC. He argued that even though the bus of the appellant was seized, but ultimately the police in the charge sheet concluded that the accident took place with bus no.RJ 29/P 1297 whereas the number that was disclosed by AW-3 Chotu, brother of the deceased was RJ 29/TI 1297. Learned counsel submitted that this fact is corroborated from the newspaper report that was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on the following day i.e. on 11.9.2008 that the Hanuman Jat aged 25 years died due to fall from a private bus. Learned counsel argued that evidence of NAW-1 Ram Nath, driver of the bus has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal, who has denied the factum of involvement of roadways bus, but has contrarily stated that the death caused due to fall from a private bus, of which news item-Ex.NA-1 was published on 11.9.2008.
(3.) Learned counsel further argued that age of the deceased in fact was 35 years as is evident from column no.3 of the claim petition. The Tribunal ought to have therefore computed the compensation by accepting that age and applying the multiplier of 16, whereas the Tribunal in the present case has committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 18. Learned counsel argued that mere fact that roadways bus in question was being plied on the route in question on the day of accident does not prove its involvement. His argument is that the claimants have precisely tried to take advantage of this fact when they realized that the private bus could not be prosecuted for compensation as it was not insured.;