- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in MACT case No. 209/ 2001 whereby the claimant was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,90,000.00 due to injuries sustained by him.
(2.) MR . Virendra Agarwal appearing for the RSRTC contends that the point involved in this misc. appeal has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in SBCivil Misc. Appeal No. 1501/2004 RSRTC vs. Ratan and ors. 1500/2004 RSRTC vs. Smt. Asha Devi, Decided on October 10, 2011. He prays that on the basis of the points decided in that case, this appeal may also be disposed. In SBCMA No. 1501/2004 and 1500/2004 this court passed the following order : "1) These appeals have been filed for setting aside the common award dated 19/5/2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar passed in two claim applications No.361/2001 (Smt.Asha Devi and Ors. Vs. Nandlal and Ors.) and 362/2001 (Ratan and Anr. Vs. Nandlal and Ors.) awarding compensation of Rs.3,70,000.00 and Rs.72,000.00, respectively. 2) Contention of Shri Virendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for short "RSRTC ") is that dispute is between the appellant-RSRTC and the Insurance Company on the question as to whether it was a case of composite negligence of driver of the bus owned by the appellant-RSRTC, who was solely responsible for the accident? It was argued that findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 is illegal, perverse and contrary to the record inasmuch as, the learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding Shri Nandlal, driver of the bus of the appellant-RSRTC solely responsible and negligent for causing the accident contrary to the evidence available on record as well as contrary to his statement tendered by him on oath while appearing in the witness box that no accident occurred by his bus. It was further argued that basic principle of law that owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for compensation on account of negligence of his employee under the law of torts, has not been considered by the learned Tribunal particularly when it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident took place due to negligence of driver of tempo. Mere fact that driver of the bus has been charge-sheeted by the police, cannot be a ground for holding the appellant-RSRTC liable to pay compensation because as per the settled principles of law, the finding of the police authorities is not binding upon the Tribunal as it was supposed to give its own finding for holding the driver of the bus of the RSRTC negligent. Further, the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petitions has not at all appreciated the aspect of composite negligence. It is, therefore, prayed that both the appeals be allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal be set-aside. 3) On the other hand, Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeals and argued that evidence of the witnesses has clearly proved that bus driver was solely negligent and it is the bus driver, who has hit the tempo from opposite side. In this connection, learned counsel drawn the attention of the court towards the statement of Shri Omprakash NAW2. Shri Omprakash NAW2 has stated that deceased was driving the tempo from Ajmer to Ramsar. Bus of the appellant was coming from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner. Deceased was driving the tempo on the correct side. Bus coming from the opposite site hit the tempo, as a result of which, tempo turned turtled. Chotulal and Gyarsi Devi, who were traveling in the tempo were died and he received fracture of his knee. Learned counsel argued that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the tempo was being driven in a negligent manner or that his negligence resulted into the accident. 4) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I am not persuaded to uphold that it was a case of contributory negligence because total evidence, which is on record suggested negligence of the bus driver owned by the appellant-RSRTC. In this connection, Shri Omprakash NAW2 has stated that he saw tempo lying being turned turtled and he took the patients to the hospital in the bus. Challan was filed against driver under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Driver-Nandlal was named as an accused in the FIR itself. In the light of the evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly did not find the case of contributory negligence. In totality of the case, two death claims were filed. In the case of deceased-Chotulal aged 30 years, his income was accepted to be Rs.2500.00 per month and on that basis, Rs.30,000.00 was assessed as annual income and after deducting 1/3rd income, which would have incurred by the deceased towards self expenses, total annual income was accepted to be Rs.20,000.00 and after applying the multiplier of 18 (20000 x 18), Rs.3,60,000.00 was arrived at and a total compensation of Rs.3,70,000.00 was awarded. In the death claim of deceased Smt.Gyarsi Devi aged 60 years, Rs.2500.00 was accepted as her monthly income after applying the multiplier of 5 in the absence of any other proof of income, hence Rs.15,000.00 was accepted as her annual income. After deducting 1/3rd income, the annual income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.10,000.00 and thus applying the multiplier of 8, a total sum of Rs.72,000.00 was awarded by the Tribunal. 5) I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal in both the cases. 6) The appeals have no merit and they are accordingly dismissed. In view of the point decided in the case of RSRTC vs. Ratan and ors. and another similar matter, Decided on October 10-, 2011, that the acquittal of the driver in the criminal case cannot be a ground that the claimant was also negligent. In this view of the matter the appeal filed by the RSRTC being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The claimant was rightly awarded compensation in the amount of 1,90,000.00 by treating his income Rs. 15,000.00 per year and applying the multiplier of 20 to the income Rs. 6000.00 as 40% disability suffered by him. The appeal filed by the RSRTC stands dismissed. ;