Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) The above mentioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them, common questions of law and facts are involved and both have been preferred against the same judgment and award dated 30.10.1996 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banner. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 456 of 1997:
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances: On 31.3.1995, a bus bearing No. RJ 14-P 2264 belonging to the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), was going towards Balotra to Sanchore and that bus was being driven by Anoop Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' and the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in Appeal No. 190 of 1997 are his LRs) and the conductor of that bus was Jagdish (hereinafter referred to 'as deceased' and the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in this appeal are his LRs) and at that time, at about 2.30 p.m., another bus bearing No. JP 14-P 2212 belonging to the appellant Corporation came from opposite side at Nagar village and that bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 8 Nathu Ram who dashed his bus against bus No. RJ 14-P 2264 and caused accident, as a result of which driver of the said bus, namely, Anoop Singh died on the spot and two other persons, namely, Jagdish and Joga-ram also died on the spot. Thereafter, claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7, who are legal representatives of deceased Jagdish filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') on 7.8.1995 stating, inter alia, that deceased Jagdish was conductor in the employment of the appellant Corporation and at the relevant time his age was about 34 years and he left behind his widow, son, daughters and mother and through that claim petition, Rs. 9,00,684 as compensation were claimed by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7. A reply to the claim petition was filed by the appellant Corporation. Thereafter, issues were framed by the learned Claims Tribunal on 10.7.1996 and both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. After hearing both the parties and after considering the entire evidence and the material available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal through judgment and award dated 30.10.1996 awarded a sum of Rs. 3,98,432 as compensation to claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 holding, inter alia: (i) That at the time of the accident, the monthly salary of the deceased Jagdish was Rs. 2,268. (ii) That at the time of accident, about eleven persons were dependent on the deceased Jagdish. (iii) That out of the amount of Rs. 2,268 about Rs. 412 were to be spent by the deceased Jagdish on himself and rest amount of Rs. 1,856 were to be spent on other members of his family. Thus, if the amount of Rs. 1,856 was multiplied by 12 months, the annual dependency came to Rs. 22,277. (iv) That after placing reliance on the Second Schedule attached with section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988'), a multiplier of 16 years was applied by the learned Claims Tribunal andthus, learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 were entitled to Rs. 3,56,432 as compensation. Apart from that amount, the learned Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 as cremation expenses and Rs. 5,000 to the wife of the deceased on account of loss of consortium and loss to estate. Furthermore, Rs. 5,000 were awarded to each claimant totalling Rs. 35,000 on account of mental agony. Rs. 3,98,432 in all were awarded as compensation to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and, accordingly, the award was passed against the present appellant Corporation. Aggrieved from the said judgment and award dated 30.10.1996 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Corporation.
(3.) In this appeal, the following two submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation: (i) That the learned Claims Tribunal has arbitrarily awarded a huge amount of Rs. 35,000 to claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 on account of mental agony, as when multiplier method was being adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, separate amount for mental agony should not have been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. (ii) That the learned Claims Tribunal has also committed illegality in placing reliance on Second Schedule attached with section 163-A of the Act of 1988 as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), has held that the Second Schedule attached with section 163-A of the Act of 1988 is defective and, therefore, multiplier of 16 years was not just and, thus, from this point of view the amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 by applying the multiplier of 16 years was not just and proper.;