- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 29.03.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa [Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases], whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the claimant-respondent No.1, Smt. Gulab Devi, for 10.07% permanent disability sustained by her in a vehicular accident, the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle, has approached this Court.
(2.) SHORTLY the facts of the case are that on 04.12.2003 at about 2:00 PM, Smt. Gulab Devi, the claimant-respondent, was going in a Tractor, bearing registration No.RJ-V-3561. Mr. Raja Ram, the driver of the tractor, while passing through the side of the pond of village Chandrana, drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the tractor overturned. Smt. Gulab Devi sustained several injuries on her body. Hence, on 21.2.2004, she filed a claim petition against the appellant and the non-claimant-respondents No.2 and 3 before the learned Tribunal. The appellant and the non-claimant-respondents filed their reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both the parties, vide award dated 29.03.2010, the learned Tribunal, while exonerating the Insurance Company, allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.70,000/- against the appellant. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, the learned Tribunal had framed a issue, issue No.4, with regard to the negligence on the part of the claimant-herself. However, it has not given any finding on the said issue. Secondly, according to the evidence of the appellant, Vinod Kumar (NAW-2), he had given oral instruction to the driver not to take any passenger on the tractor. Since the driver has acted contrary to his instruction, therefore, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the access of the driver. Thirdly, the compensation awarded to the claimant-respondent is on the higher side. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has not considered her income and has yet awarded a compensation of Rs.55,000/- for 10.07% permanent disability. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the issue No.1 and issue No.4 were adjudicated together. As far as the finding of issue No.1 is concerned, the learned Tribunal has correctly held that the negligence lay on the part of the driver of the tractor. According to the Tribunal, this is apparent from the testimony of Gulab Devi (AW-2) as well as from the fact that after a thorough investigation, the Police had charge-sheeted the driver of the tractor. Since the fault lay entirely on the shoulder of the driver, the Tribunal has not given any finding about the negligence on the part of the claimant-respondent. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to prove any negligence committed by Smt. Gulab Devi. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable. As regards the second contention, the learned Tribunal has noticed that except for the bald statement made by the appellant that he had given oral instruction to the driver, there is on evidence to substantiate this statement. In case, such a defence were allowed, that too without any substantial evidence, it would permit people to deny their responsibility by making a bald statement before the Tribunal. Such a claim made by the appellant has to be corroborated by some independent evidence. Since there is lack of independent evidence, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that such a bald statement is unacceptable.
(3.) THE third contention raised by the learned counsel is a self-defeating contention. For, despite the fact that the claimant has suffered a 10.07% disability, the learned Tribunal has not applied the formula as given in Item No.5 of the II Schedule attached to the M.V. Act, 1988. In case the said formula were to be applied, the amount of compensation, which would be payable to the claimant-respondent, would be higher than Rs.55,000/-. For, according to the claimant-respondent, she was 40 years old when she met with the accident. Taking her to be a house-wife, she would be entitled to a assessment of her income as Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, applying the formula given in Item No.5, in fact, she will be entitled to ruffly Rs.57,000/-. THErefore, the said contention would defeat the very interest of the appellant. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.;