- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 27.08.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahapura, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.6,35,000/- in favour the claimants-respondents, the appellant-Corporation has approached this Court.
(2.) SHORTLY the facts of the case are that on 11.02.2007 around 4:30 PM, Mukesh Tanwar was going on motorcycle, bearing registration No. RJ-14-46M-9540, from Ramgarh Mod to Chopar. At that time a bus, bearing registration No. RJ-20-P-1779, being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. Consequently, Mukesh Tanwar sustained injuries. Subsequently, he died. Since the claimants-respondents had lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The appellant filed its 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. In support of their case the claimants-respondents, examined two witnesses and exhibited seven documents. On the other hand, the appellant examined only two witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide award dated 27.08.2010, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Deepak Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, has raised two contentions before this Court : firstly, the claimants have not been able to establish that the negligence was solely due to the driver of the bus. According to the learned counsel, it is a case of contributory negligence, where Mukesh Tanwar was equally responsible for causing the accident. Secondly, the learned Tribunal was not justified in assessing Mukesh's salary as Rs.4,000/- per month. Although a salary certificate has been submitted, the same has not been proven. Therefore, the assessment of the salary is misplaced. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the testimony of AW-2, Gokul Singh, who is not only an eye witness of the accident, but most importantly, is an independent witness. Gokul Singh, in his examination-in-chief, clearly states that on the fateful day, he was going to Chora Rasta, Jaipur, for buying some cards. Near the Jorawar Singh Gate, he saw a bus, being driven rashly and negligently. The said bus collied with a motorcycle. Subsequently, the rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries and died. Thus, according to the independent witness, the accident was caused because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the bus driver. Even if the site plan has not been produced by the claimants, it would not dilute the creditworthiness of the witness. Moreover, the appellant-Corporation has not led any evidence, orally or documentary, to prove the fact that Mukesh had contributed to the alleged accident. Thus, the first contention that it is a case of contributory negligence, and the same has been ignored by the learned Tribunal, is unacceptable. As far as the second contention is concerned, according to the learned Tribunal, the claimants had pleaded in the claim petition that Mukesh was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. However, Smt. Rekha Gurjar, Mukesh's wife, clearly admitted, in her cross-examination, that her husband was earning merely Rs.4,000/- per month. It is imperative to note that it is her admission in a cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month.
(3.) 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.;