- (1.) THE appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') and its officers have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') for assailing the impugned award dated 26th of November 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Jodhpur, whereby the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other materials on record, allowed the claim petition of the respondent claimants in part and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,39,700/ .
(2.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that respondent claimants laid a claim under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, inter alia, on the ground that on 13th of May 2008, a bus of the Corporation bearing No.RJ 24 P 1636 hit motorcycle No.RJS A 1191 near Paota Circle, Jodhpur, which was driven by Kishanlal and accompanied by pillion rider Hanuman Ram. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus, and as a result of accident Kishanlal suffered grave and serious injuries and ultimately he succumbed to those injuries in the hospital. Mentioning the age of deceased Kishanlal as 49 years, the respondent claimants have categorically averred in the claim petition that at the time of accident he was employed in MDM Hospital, Jodhpur, earning monthly salary of Rs.9,338/ . The claim petition was contested by the Corporation and the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus was refuted. The Corporation in its return has attributed the accident to deceased Kishanlal by alleging that in fact he was plying his motorcycle rashly and negligently. Defending the action of the driver of the Corporation, the Corporation has averred in the reply that the driver has made all sincere endeavor to save the deceased but due to his culpable negligence the accident could not be averted.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal, after settling the issues, permitted the rival parties to adduce evidence. The respondent No.1 (claimant) herself appeared in the witness box and testified on oath. Her version was fully endorsed by the other witness Hanumana Ram so far as quantum of compensation is concerned. That apart, for proving rash and negligent driving of the Corporation vehicle, Hanumana Ram deposed on oath as ocular witness because at the time of accident he was accompanying the deceased. Besides oral evidence, the respondent claimants have also produced 28 documents to substantiate their claim. Against the evidence of the respondent claimants, no evidence was tendered on behalf of the appellant Corporation. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of unimpeachable evidence of the respondent claimants and other materials, decided all the issues in favour of respondent claimants and against the appellant Corporation. Relying on the pay slip of the 1/3rd deceased, learned Tribunal deducted amount against the personal expenses of the deceased, and applying multiplier of 11 quantified the compensation to the tune of Rs.8,21,700. Apart from the said amount, for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/ were awarded and Rs.5,000/ for funeral expenses. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.2,000/ for damage to the vehicle and Rs.1,000/ for carrying dead body of the deceased.;