- (1.) THE appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') assailing the impugned award dated 15th of October 2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Abu Road, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the respondent claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,73,000/ only.
(2.) THE facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that on 7th of May 2002 at 12:30 PM, deceased Ganeshlal was plying his motorcycle RJ 24 M 1642 on National Highway No.14, and the said motorcycle was hit by the Corporation bus bearing No.RJ 04 P 0258, which resulted in grave and serious injuries to Ganeshlal and Ganeshlal succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The respondent claimants, who are widow, sons and daughter of the deceased, laid the claim, inter alia, on the ground that at the time of accident deceased Ganeshlal was 35 years old and he was earning his livelihood as Cook and also carried agricultural activities. The respondent claimants have averred in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/ . On the strength of pleadings, the respondent claimants have quantified the total compensation of Rs.22,40,000/ only. The petition was contested by the appellant as well as the proforma respondent, and a joint written statement on their behalf was submitted denying all the allegations. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. For substantiating their claim on behalf of respondent claimants, two witnesses appeared including the first respondent. Besides the oral evidence, documentary evidence was also tendered by the respondents. On behalf of the appellant, the driver of the vehicle Mr. Gopal Ram appeared in the witness box. The learned Tribunal, after hearing rival arguments, by the impugned award has decided Issue No.1, 4 & 5 in favour of the respondent claimants. Similarly, Issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the claimants. While deciding Issue No.2 regarding quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has assessed the total amount of compensation by treating daily income of the deceased @ Rs.60, and the monthly income was taken as Rs.1800 only, out of which 1/3 was deducted against the personal expenditure of the deceased and thereafter applying multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation was determined at Rs.2,30,400 only. That apart, for loss of consortium and under other heads, additional amount has been allowed making total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,73,000 only.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.P. Goswami appearing for Mr. Anil Bachhawat, has argued that the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal is per se erroneous because there was no material placed on record by the respondent claimants to prove the said income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the finding of the learned Tribunal on rash and negligent driving is not based on proper appreciation of evidence, and therefore, the award impugned cannot be sustained.;