D.L.MEHTA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 3rd May, 1989, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in case No. 222/1985.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 23.3.1986, deceased Bhanwar Pal Singh, and his son Mahendra Pal Singh, were going towards Naharsinghji's Temple from their house on Hero Majestic Bearing No. RNE 330. When they reached near Transport Nagar, crossing suddenly respondent No. 1, came from Delhi By-pass driving his truck No. DEG 4211, rashly and negligently and collided with the hero majestic. Due to this accident Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh sustained serious injuries and died. Deceased Bhanwar Pal Singh, was working as Architectural Assistant in the P.W.D. and he was aged about 49 years. He was receiving salary of Rs. 2,095/- per month. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of both the parties, arrived at the following conclusions: (1) It is a case of contributory negligence and some negligence should be attributed to the deceased. It was found that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. 25% negligence of the deceased and his son and 75% negligence of the driver of the truck was assumed. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning at the time of this death a sum of Rs. 2,161.75 paise. The Tribunal also come to the conclusion that the age of the deceased should be around 50 years at the time of accident. The age of retirement is 58 years. The Tribunal found that some amount should be reduced on account of dependency for the following reasons. (1) That the son of the deceased was employed by the Government, as a solatium of the past services rendered by the deceased and the son who is appointed is drawing Rs. 900/- per month. (2) The second reason for the reduction is that the family pension is granted and the members of the family in getting Rs. 400/- as pension. Mr. Bhartiya, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Tarabai, wife of the deceased has stated on oath that the age of the deceased was 47 years. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the statement of Kasilash, In the statement, the age of the deceased has been shown as about 49 to 50 years. Mr. Bhartiya submits that the best document is the post-mortem report, in which the age has been recorded as 47 years. Thus, the statement of Mst. Tara, wife of the deceased should be the basis of the age of the deceased that the age of the deceased was 47 years and not 50 years and this Court should arrive at a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 47 years and not 50 years at the time of accident
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in the statement of Kailash, P.W. 3, is the witness of the claimants and he has stated that the age of the deceased was about 50 years at the time of accident so this age should be taken as foundation for the determination of the age. He further submits that the statement of Mst. Tara, have not been corroborated by any other oral evidence. He further submits that the necessary documents relating to the age of the deceased has not been produced by the claimants. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that the age of the deceased should be considered as 50 years and not 47 years.;