MILAP CHANDRA JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 110 -D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Barmer dated. December 15,1988 by which the claimant - respondent have been granted Rs. 1,49,500/ - as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum. The facts of the case -giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON February 1,1986, at about 7p.m, late Bhagwanaram (husband of the claimants -respondent No. Land father of die claimants -respondents No.2 to 6) was going on hisbullock cart on the correct side the road. Water tanker No. RJC 3798 came along frombehind and dashed against the bullock cart. As a result thereof, Bhagwanaram was flung off the cart impetuously and succumbed on the spot, the bullocks received serious injuries and the cart was badly damaged. Police Station, Barmer registered a case against the tanker driver Shankarlal. The claimants filed their claim petition for Rs. 4,48,877/ averring that at the time of the accident, Bhagwanaram was serving as a key -man in the Northern Railway, Barmer, the was getting Rs. 951/ - per month as his salary, he was to retire on February 29, l996, his next promotion on the post of Mate was due on 1.1.1988 and after retirement he was to get pension @ 50 of his pay. The non -petitioner appellants admit in their written statement that the said tanker RJC 3798 belonged to them, it was being driven by its driver Shankarlal, the said accident took place on February 1, 1986, Bhagwana Ram died and he was in the service of Northern Railway, Barmer and challan has been filed by the police against the driver Shankarlal in respect of the said accident. The remaining averments of the claim petition were denied. They further averred in their reply that the accident took place as the bullocks got scared on hearing the noise of the on coming water -tanker, the speed of the water tanker before the accident was quite normal and Shankarlal was driving the tanker with due care and caution. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the said award holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the water tanker by the driver Shankarlal and the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,49,500/ - with interest @ 12% per annum. It has been contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred to hold that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver Shankarlal. There is no force in this contention. The eyewitness Udaram, A.W.4 has deposed that the deceased Bhagawanaram was going on his bullock cart water tanker, RJC 3798 passed along, it was being driven by Shankarlal at an excessive speed and it dashed against the bullock cart from behind and at that time he was repairing the pedal of his cycle at a distance of 50 ft from the place of the accident. He has further deposed that Bhagwanaram died on the spot, the bullock cart was badly damaged and the bullocks also received grievous injuries. Nothing damaging could be elicited out in his cross -examination. Immediately after the accident, S.I. Padam Singh, P.S. Barmerreached the place of accidentand on his report Ex. A/1 case was registered against the tanker driver Shankarlal. It is clearly mentioned in it that Udaram A.W.4 was found at the place of accident. It may also be mentioned here that Udaram A.W. 4 is an attesting witness of the memos Ex. A/2 and A/4 Jawaharlal. A.W. 5, Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Barmer, in charge of maintenance of water tankers including the said tanker No RJC 3798, has deposed that immediately after the accident he went to the place of occurrence and found the driver Shankarlal and Khalasi Kishore Singh there and on his query Kishore Singh disclosed that Shankarlal had dashed the bullock cart from behind with his water tanker. The non -petitioner appellants examined Junior Engineers Khinvraj NAW -1 and Mohammed Raffia NAW -2 Both of them have deposed that the driver Shankarlal admitted before them that the. Accident took place due to his mistake. All, these facts and circumstances leave no manner of doubt that the accident took place due to Rasa and negligent driving of the water tanker by its driver Shankerlal.
(3.) IT was next contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the learned Tribunal seriously erred to award Rs. 1,49,500/ - as compensation. He contended that in the absence of pay certificate it could not be held that the pay scale was revised from 225 -308 to 8825 -1200 and at the time of the accident Bhagwanaram was getting Rs. 951/ -per month as his salary. He also contended that the learned Tribunal was not justified to reduce 25% only of the emoluments as the amount spent by the deceased upon himself and to allow Rs. 5,000/ - spent in performing in last rites of the deceased.;