- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by nonclaimant-appellant National Insurance Company Limited, assailing award dated 04.12.2002 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur), in MAC Case No.1312/1997, by which learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.16,80,000/- in a death claim, in favour of the claimants.
(2.) Deceased Ram Singh Meena, who was husband of claimant-respondent no.1, father of claimantrespondents no.2 to 5 and son of respondent no.6, was going on a motorcycle No.RJ-14-M-3496 from Jhalrapatan to Teendhar on 12.05.1997. When he reached the public road near village Bagdhar at 9.45 AM, a trolla no.GJ-7X-6048, being driven by non-claimant-respondent no.7 Suresh Kumar, came from opposite direction, while taking a turn, struck the motorcycle, as a result of which Ram Singh Meena died on the spot. Learned Tribunal, upholding aforesaid plea of claimants and accepting monthly income of deceased to be Rs.11,600/-, applying the multiplier of 15 at the age of 41 years, determined compensation at Rs.16,65,000/- for loss of dependency. In addition thereto, an amount of Rs.15000/- was awarded cumulatively for loss of consortium, love and affection, attendant, funeral expenses and estate loss, and thus total compensation of Rs.16,80,000/- was awarded as compensation.
(3.) Shri Vizzy Agrawal, learned counsel for appellants contended that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. Despite specific averment in the reply to the claim petition that the truck trolla was not involved in the accident and, despite there being no evidence of involvement of said trolla, learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the accident involved aforesaid trolla. None of the witnesses examined by claimants could establish from their statements that said truck-trolla was involved in the accident. AW-1 Smt. Kashkandha Meena is admittedly not an eye witness. AW-2 Ramaotar, who claimed himself to be an eye witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, in the criminal trial of the driver that he did not see the accident taking place. He reached the site of accident after it had taken place. Learned Tribunal, therefore, discarded the statement of AW-2 Ramaotar. These witnesses failed to stand the scrutiny of cross-examination. Even though the court witness CW-1 Gajraj Singh has stated that trolla was involved in the accident but he said that he noticed the accident after the trolla had gone 400 feet away from the place of accident and that he could not notice its registration number. Another court witness CW-2 Tejraj Singh, author of first information report and investigating officer of the criminal case, failed to prove that the accident was caused by the truck aforesaid. He stated that registration number of truck-trolla was told to him by local villagers but he could not name any such villager. The site plan was prepared at 10.35 AM on the place of accident itself but registration number of the truck was not disclosed therein. Learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate the statement of NAW-1 Suresh Kumar, driver of the truck, who asserted that his truck was not involved in the accident. He was caught by the police from a 'dhaba' where he had halted at around 8.00 AM on 12.05.1997. The said 'dhaba' was 7 kilometers away from the place of accident. The driver has been acquitted by the court in the criminal trial because offence against him was not proved. The Tribunal has erred in law in discarding the testimony of Suresh Kumar only on the ground that he did not file his reply to the claim petition. It was further argued that mechanical inspection report of the insured truck (Exhibit-10) shows that it did not contain any fresh blood stains. It has come in the evidence of AW-2 Ramaotar and CW-1 Gajraj Singh, that at the site of the accident, there is turn of as much as 110 degree. Thus, there is every possibility of the motorcycle getting slipped as the deceased was to reach Ratlai, which was 25 kilometer away therefrom, to attend the duty. In order to reach Ratlai on duty in time at 10 AM and it was already 9.45 AM. He might have driven the motorcycle speedily and on the turn it got slipped. Multiplier of 15 is not to be mechanically applied just because the age of the deceased was claimed to be 41 years at the time of his death. Lesser multiplier should be applied for high income group. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.), 1994 AIR(SC) 1631 and united India Insurance Company Limited vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others, 2002 AIR(SC) 2607. The quantum of compensation that has been awarded, if invested in a bank, would fetch more amount than what would have been contributed by the deceased to the family. Learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency after deducting an amount equivalent to 2 units out of total 10 units, on account of self- expenses of the deceased, from the total monthly income of Rs.11600/- and, thus learned Tribunal arrived at net loss of dependency at Rs.9250/-. Had the learned Tribunal adopted the universally acclaimed method of 1/3 rd deduction, the monthly loss of dependency would have come to Rs.7733/- only. Other factors remaining the same, the compensation towards the loss of dependency would have come to Rs.13,91,940/- only instead of Rs.16,65,000/-. Learned Tribunal also erred in law in enhancing monthly salary from Rs.9250/- to Rs.12000/- by taking into consideration element of future prospects but it did not count for the future uncertainties such as demotion, termination etc. The compensation that has been ultimately awarded is, therefore, unjust and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed that impugned award may be set aside.;