- (1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Misc. Claim Petition No.100/2001 filed by the widow, children and parents of the deceased Prem Raj and Misc. Claim Petition No.103/2001 filed by the injured Moti Lal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that on 11.5.2001 at about 1.00 p.m. deceased Prem Raj was travelling in a Jeep bearing registration No.RJ 25 P 0702 from Kundera to Shyampura. Near Markhara Mall, the offending Bus bearing registration No.RJU 5727 coming from the opposite direction, driven by respondent no.1 ? Hansraj and owned by respondent no.2 ? Fakhruddin, rashly and negligently hit the Jeep on driver side and deceased Prem Raj sitting on the middle seat of the Jeep, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries, and the claimant Moti Lal who was a passenger in the bus, apart from two simple injuries also suffered injuries which led to the amputation of his left leg below knee. Case No.60/2001 was registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar against respondent no.1 ? Hansraj, the driver of the bus for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Respondent no.3 being the Insurance Company of the bus, was also arrayed as a party. The learned Tribunal after framing four issues, arrived at a conclusion that it was on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1 ? Hansraj, driver of the bus, that the deceased Prem Raj died and Moti Lal sustained injuries which led to amputation of his left leg below knee, and awarded compensation of Rs.2,94,760/- and Rs.41,348/- respectively to the claimants. The appellants in both the appeals have prayed for enhancement of the award amount on various grounds. Appeal No.373/2002 Appellant no.1 is the widow whereas appellant nos.2 and 3 are minor children (daughter aged 10 years and son aged 8 years) and appellant nos.4 and 5 are 48 years and 50 years old parents of the deceased Prem Raj, who was, at the relevant time stated to be 28 years of age and was engaged in milk vending and running flour mill.
(3.) BOTH, the driver and the owner of the bus, contested the claim petition before the Tribunal stating that the vehicle was insured and, therefore, respondent no.3, the Insurance Company, was liable to make payment of compensation amount. Respondent no.3 ? Insurance Company also filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contested on the ground that the accident occurred on account of negligent driving of the Jeep driver and that the driver of the bus, respondent no.1, did not have a valid and proper license to drive the bus at the relevant point of time and that the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the Jeep were also necessary parties. It was prayed that for want of valid driving license of the driver, the conditions of the policy were breached and that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. Appeal No.374/2002 Appellant Moti Lal aged 21 years, was at the relevant time travelling in the offending bus bearing registration no.RJU 5727 and that due to this accident he sustained injuries which led to amputation of his left leg below knee. Replies of the driver, owner and Insurance Company were almost similar as in the other appeal. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues and decided issue no.1, with regard to negligent driving of the bus, in favour of the appellants and arrived at the conclusion that on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1 ? Hansraj, deceased Prem Raj died and the appellant Moti Lal sustained grievous injuries. Issue no.3 with regard to breach of conditions of license, was decided against the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company. As regards issue no.2, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the claimants were jointly and severally entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2,94,760/- and Rs.41,348/- in the respective claim petitions from respondent nos.1 to 3. It has not been disputed before me that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. It is also not in dispute that the said bus was owned by respondent no.2 ? Fakhruddin and was driven by respondent no.1 ? Hansraj. It is only the respondent no.3 ? Insurance Company, who is before us. As these facts have not been disputed before this court, the court has only to consider whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal was proper or not. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,94,760/- and Rs.41,348/- in the respective claim petitions against respondents no.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The said figure was arrived at on the basis of age and earning of the deceased Prem Raj and appellant Moti Lal and then applying multiplier of 18 in the case of deceased Prem Raj. ;