- (1.) Both, the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the award dated 19.06.2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,14,200/- and has apportioned the compensation amongst the appellant-claimant, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar, claimant-respondent, Smt. Suraj Parihar, respondent No.5, Mr. Raghav Parihar and respondent No.6, Smt. Bhawna Patel. Smt. Sangeeta Parihar has filed the appeal before this Court, while Mr. Raghav Parihar has filed the cross-objection. Since both the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same award, they are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.1994, Mr. Ravindra Parihar and his wife, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar and an another lady, Smt. Aruna Swami, were travelling in a Fiat Car, bearing Registration No. RNI 45, from Bheror to Jaipur. Around 9:00 PM, when they reached near the village Aantela, one of the back tires was punctured. Mr. Ravindra Parihar, who was driving the car, got out of the car in order to replace the flat tire. Smt. Sangeeta Parihar and Smt. Aruna Swami were standing nearby, while Mr. Ravindra Parihar was trying to change the tire. However, at that time, a truck, bearing registration No. HR-27-8561, while trying to overtake, in a most rash and negligent manner, hit Mr. Ravindra Parihar. Consequently, he expired on the spot. Since Smt. Sangeeta Parihar, and Smt. Suraj Parihar, the mother of the deceased, lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In the claim petition, both Mr. Raghav Parihar, son of Mr. Ravindra Parihar, and Smt. Bhawna Patel, daughter of Mr. Ravindra Parihar, were arrayed as proforma respondents. The claim petition was filed against the owner, the driver and the Insurance Company. The owner and the driver chose not to file any written statement. However, the Insurance Company contested the claim petition. In order to buttress their contentions, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar examined herself as a witness and submitted about ten documents. On behalf of Mr. Raghav Parihar, Mr. Dhirendra Parihar was examined as a witness, as the power of attorney holder of Mr. Raghav Parihar. Smt. Aruna Swami was also examined as a witness on behalf of Mr. Raghav Parihar. The Insurance Company chose not to examine anyone on its behalf. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal, vide award dated 19.06.2003, granted the compensation along with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 15.05.1995. It further directed the in case the said amount was not paid within a period of two months, then the compensation would carry an interest @ 12% per annum. While directing the payment of compensation, it apportioned the amount as under : (i) 50% of the amount to be awarded to Mr. Raghav Parihar. (ii) 25% of the amount to be awarded to Smt. Sangeeta Parihar. (iii) 15% of the amount to be awarded to Smt. Suraj Parihar. (iv) 10% of the amount to be awarded to Mr. Bhawna Patel.
(3.) Hence, this appeal and cross-objection against the said award. Mr. K.N. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, Mr. Ravindra Parihar was an advocate of this High Court. He had joined the Bar in 1967. He was not only a standing counsel for PHED Department, but also had quite a good practice in the civil, criminal and writ branches of law. Although initially in the claim petition it was mentioned that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, the appellant brought it to the notice of the learned Tribunal that the said amount had been typed inadvertently in the claim petition. She sought the permission of the learned Tribunal to change the said amount. The permission was duly granted by the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the income was changed from Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.6,000/- per month. In fact, during her testimony, the appellant had clearly stated that her husband, Mr. Ravindra Parihar, was giving her Rs.6,000/- per month in order to run the house. According to the learned counsel, this testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination. Yet, still the learned Tribunal has assessed Mr. Parihar's income as merely Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, the very basis for assessing the loss of dependency is misplaced. In fact, the income of Mr. Parihar should have been taken to be Rs.6,000/- per month.;