H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) THESE three appeals arise out of common judgment passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 271/1991, 272/1991, 232/1991 and 244/1991 filed by respective claimants whereby the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 12.8.1996 modified the awards dated 8.4.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.S.R.T.C) filed three D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) Nos. 62/1997, 64/1997 and 65/1997. The claimant Ram Gopal has filed D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 72/1997 seeking enhancement of compensation.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the judgments passed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. On careful consideration of the material on record, we do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge holding the bus driver negligent for the accident in question. We have perused the statements of A.W. 1 Sanwar Mai and A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar. These witnesses are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who were occupants of the jeep which was hit by the bus owned by R.S.R.T.C. On 10.7.1986 A.W. 1 Sanwar Mal, A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar, A.W. 3 Ram Gopal, Ramesh Kumar, Phool Chand, Virendra Kumar and Hari Prakash @ Munna were travelling in Jeep No. RRT 6961 from Madhopur to Bikaner. When the said jeep was plying on Fatehpur-Ratangarh Road, at about 5.30 a.m., bus No RNE 9886 owned by the R.S.R.T.C. came from opposite direction being driven at a great speed, rashly and negligently by its driver second respondent Sanwal Singh, hit the jeep. Due to this accident, the jeep was completely damaged and the occupants of the jeep, namely, Ramesh Kumar, Phool Chand, Virendra Kumar and Hari Prakash @ Munna sustained fatal injuries. They succumbed to the injuries and A.W. 3 Ram Gopal (appellant in D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 72/1997) sustained as many as five injuries on the right hand, skull and nose etc. The injury oil the right hand resulted in amputation of the right hand from above elbow. The testimony of the eye-witnesses is consistent to the effect that the jeep was driven at a moderate speed on its correct side of road whereas the bus suddenly swerved to wrong side of the road coming from the opposite direction at a great speed and dashed against the jeep. The jeep was thrown about 70 to 80 feet away after it was hit by the bus. The eye-witnesses are consistent on the point that the said accident took place before the bus had crossed the railway level crossing. The learned Single Judge on reappreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the finding recorded on the point of negligence by the Tribunal was based on extraneous or inadmissible evidence. From the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence, it is clear that the accident in question took place before the bus had crossed the railway level crossing and not after having crossed the railway crossing as contended by the learned Counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. The Tribunal based its finding mainly on the site inspection map which, according to it, was incomplete but even then the Tribunal chose to rely upon such an incomplete document. More so, the said map has not been proved by the author of the document or its Motbirs. The learned Single Judge rightly held this document to be inadmissible in evidence while reversing the finding of the Tribunal on the point of negligence. The Tribunal has altogether ignored the testimony of three eye-witnesses, who sustained injuries due to the very accident. A.W. 3 Ram Gopal has proved the injuries which he sustained in the said accident. A.W. 1 Sanwar Mai had lodged the F.I.R. of the said accident promptly with the police. His evidence was not believed by the Tribunal because he failed to produce the injury report for the injuries sustained in the said accident. The testimony of the eyewitnesses produced by the claimants remained unrebutted. The presence of these witnesses in the jeep at the time of the occurrence cannot be doubted. In these circumstances, the Tribunal fell in error in preferring the site inspection map, an incomplete and unproved document as against the testimony of independent witnesses. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge justifiably placed reliance upon the evidence of independent eye-witnesses produced by the claimants while reversing the finding on negligence. More so, this controversy has already been concluded by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 62/1997 decided on 11.1.2001 arising out of the same accident to which one of us (H.R. Panwar, J.) was a party. In Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation , the effect of non-filing of an appeal in the connected suit tried together with common issues came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court held that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merit the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed.
(3.) SO far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Single Judge has awarded compensation of Rs. 85,000/- in the case of deceased Phool Chand, Rs. 90,000/- in the case of deceased Ramesh Kumar and Rs. 1,00,000/- in the case of injured Ram Gopal. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered when compensation awarded is either too low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, for the death of Phool Chand, a young person aged 35 years and Ramesh Kumar aged 20 years, award of Rs. 85,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- to the respective claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased persons cannot be said to be too excessive. D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 72/1997 filed by the appellant claimant Ram Gopal (for short 'the claimant'), who at the relevant time of the accident was an occupant of the jeep and due to rash and negligent driving of the R.S.R.T.C. bus by its driver respondent No. 1 Sanwal Singh sustained various injuries on his person. The claimant has placed on record the injury report Ex. 2, certificate issued by Rehabilitation Research Centre, S.M.S., Medical College Hospital, Jaipur. Ex. 3 dated 17.3.1988, which shows that the claimant Ram Gopal has suffered an amputation from above right elbow. The Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Srirnadhopur has certified that the right hand of the claimant has been amputated due to an accident. Ex. 6 of the certificate issued by S.M.S., Medical College Hospital/Jaipur shows that the claimant was admitted as an indoor patient from 11.7.1986 to 12.8.1986 in Neuro-surgical Ward. He was admitted because of head injury vide Admission No. 22722. Ex. 7 is the certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, in the year 1971 showing the date of birth of the claimant to be 1.2.1954. Ex. 8 is a certificate issued by the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'L.I.C.'), Sikar showing claimant's commission earning. Ex. 9 is copy of income tax return filed by the claimant. The claimant has also produced the bills for treatment expenses and the transportation charges incurred by him. Exhibits 11 to 166. From the record, it is established that the claimant Ram Gopal sustained injuries on right hand, which resulted in amputation of right hand above elbow. He has also sustained head injury resulting in numerous fractures of skull. Injuries have been on nose and other parts of the body. In all he sustained five injuries vide Ex. 2. This fact has amply been established from the statements of A.W. 3 Ram Gopal, A.W. 4 Chauthmal and A.W. 5 Dr. Rakesh Nathani, Assistant Professor, Department of Neuro-surgery, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur.;