- (1.) THESE three appeals have been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation and its General Manager against the common award dated 17.12.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, in MAC Cases No.450/2009, 451/2009 and 452/2009, by which it has awarded a sum of Rs.4,300/-/- to injured-claimant in Appeal No.861/2012, a sum of Rs.4,24,100/- to claimants on account of death of Laxmi, in Appeal No.876/2012, and a sum of Rs.4,36,403/- to injured-claimant, in Appeal No.880/2012.
(2.) ACCORDING to claimants, deceased and injured were, on a motorcycle, going from Barwada to Uniara on 29.06.2009. When they passed from Aligarh towards Uniara at about 9.30 AM on that day, driver of appellant Corporation, while driving bus no.RJ-08-P-0576 in a rash and negligent manner, hit them on wrong side of road and as a result of which Laxmi W/o claimant Dharmendra, aged 26 years, sustained serious injuries on her head and, during treatment, she died in evening of that very day. Injured claimant Hari Singh sustained certain injuries. Injured claimant Dharmendra, who at the relevant time was 28 years of age, sustained fracture on hand and leg. His permanent disability was assessed by the medical board, vide Exhibit-16, to be 50%. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited judgment of this court in Yuvraj Vs. Shri Prakash Chandra and Others, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.804/1996, decided on 04.01.2008, and argued that three persons were travelling on motorcycle whereas permissible limit is of two persons and, therefore, it should be held to be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 25%. It was argued that since injured Dharmendra Singh himself is a claimant in death claim case of deceased Laxmi, looking to his age, he has prospects of remarriage, therefore, compensation ought not to be awarded to him. Learned counsel argued that deceased Laxmi was house wife and, therefore, her income could not be determined at Rs.3000/- per month and, on that basis, after due deductions for personal expenses, the loss of dependency of Rs.2000/- could not have been multiplied by multiplier of 17 to arrive at the sum payable as compensation i.e. Rs.4,24,100/-. Learned counsel argued that permanent disability certificate of claimant injured Dharmendra Singh could not be believed in absence of doctor being produced in witness-box. Learned counsel also submitted that there is evidence to show that motorcycle was being driven by claimant injured Dharmendra Singh himself and that it appears that he was trying to overtake truck carrying fodder and suddenly the motorcycle was hit by the bus of appellant Corporation, which was coming from opposite direction. It was indeed, therefore, a case of contributory negligence. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that although suggestion was given to injured Dharmendra Singh by appellant in cross-examination but he denied that suggestion that he was trying to overtake truck and, therefore, accident took place. On the contrary, driver of appellant Corporation, NAW-1 Ghanshyam, in his court statement, has flatly denied the fact of accident and stated that on that date no accident took place from his vehicle and that it was a case of skid of motorcycle when claimant injured tried to overtake a truck wherein fodder was being carried. Learned Tribunal in the light of such evidence, the document Exhibit-4, site-plan-report, and Exhibit 6, mechanical-inspection-report of bus of appellant Corporation, has found the marks of accident at the bus. Learned Tribunal has also observed that bumper of bus was having dent on driver side and indicator was also found broken and glass of head light of right side was also found broken. Contention that income of housewife, in absence of adequate proof thereabout, cannot be accepted at Rs.3000/- per month, is liable to be rejected in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. National Insurance Company and Others (2010) 9 SCC 218. Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court therein has held that it is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the term "services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. In that case, the Supreme Court accepted the income of deceased housewife to be Rs.5000/- per month and accordingly enhanced the compensation.
(3.) ON the disability aspect of injured Dharmendra Singh, it has to be noted that duly constituted medical board consisting of three doctors of Government Hospital, Tonk, vide Exhibit-16, has assessed his permanent disability to the extent of 50% for rest of life. He sustained fracture on his right leg and that his right hand was also permanently impaired. He sustained number of other injuries and that considering those facts it was held that he would suffer for rest of his life. Learned Tribunal, on the aspect of contributory negligence, did not accept the plea on the basis of the fact that three persons were riding on motorcycle relied on judgment of this court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Arjun Das 2005 RAR (Raj.) 501, wherein it was held that mere fact that three passengers were riding on motorcycle cannot be a reason to hold that it was a case of contributory negligence unless such a plea was otherwise proved from any cogent evidence. Even otherwise interference on the basis of arguments, that have been raised by learned counsel for appellants in assailing impugned award, cannot be justified, because quantum of compensation that has been awarded in death claim for deceased Laxmi, who was 26 years of age, is only Rs.4,24,100/- which also includes compensation on other non-pecuniary heads and this cannot be said to be excessive; in the case of one of injured Hari Singh it was only Rs.4,300/- and in the case of injured Dharmendra Singh, who sustained 50% permanent disability and would suffer it for rest of his life, it was only Rs.4,36,403/-. I therefore do not find any merit in all these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. This also disposes of the stay applications filed along-with the appeals.;