M.C. Sharma, J. - (1.) SINCE all the aforesaid appeals relate to one incident and arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 7.4.2008 at about 1.00 PM Lokendra @ Satyabhan was going with Rajveer Singh on Motor Cycle No. UP -80 -BA -9540 from Maniya to Dholpur. At Sakatpur cross on Agra -Mumbai Highway, one RSRTC bus No. RJ -05 -P -1051 came from opposite side and hit the motor cycle in negligent manner, as a result of which both got injuries on their person. In the result the claimant Lokendra @ Satyabhan sustained grievous injuries and Rajveer died on the spot. An FIR was registered for the said accident in the concerned police station. Thereafter two claim petitions were filed, notices were issued, written statement of defence was filed, issues were framed and hearing the counsel for both the sides, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment dated 27.10.2010 awarding Rs. 1,89,212/ - in favour of claimant Satyabhan in Claim petition No. 178/2008; and Rs. 4,69,000/ - in favour of claimants Smt. Brijesh and others in claim petition No. 191/2008 and against the RSRTC.
(2.) AGAINST the said judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, CMA Nos. 1826/2011 and 1760/2011 have been filed by the RSRTC, while CMA No. 3354/2010 has been filed by the claimants Smt. Brijesh and Others for enhancement of quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has contended that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 is perverse and against the evidence and material available on record. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in giving finding that the driver of the bus was negligent while driving the bus. The driver of the motor cycle was also negligent. Therefore, it was a case of contributory negligence because admittedly, it was a head on collision between the two vehicles. He has further contended that the impugned judgment and award is based on conjectures and surmises. The learned Tribunal has failed to consider the site plan which shows that one side of road traffic was open due to construction on road and driver of the bus was driving the bus in slow speed. It was the driver of the motor cycle who was trying to overtake the Harvester, which was coming from opposite side on the same half side of the road. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set -aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants have contended that the learned Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation on the basis of the evidence submitted by both the parties, has not considered the material available on record and failed to consider the evidence in true sense. He has further contended that deceased Rajveer Singh was working on the post of Supervisor with Kavita Construction Company, Agra and he used to earn a sum of Rs. 9000/ - in a month. The claimants placed on record the salary certificate (Ex. -9) and same was proved by the Proprietor of Kavita construction company Agra namely Munna Singh Bhadoriya by getting himself examined as AW -3, wherein he specifically stated that the deceased Rajveer Singh was working as Head Supervisor in the firm and he was being paid a sum of Rs. 9000/ - per month as a salary and ex. -9 has been issued under his signature. But the learned Tribunal has disbelieved this evidence without any cogent reason and assessed the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 3000/ - per month, which is contrary to the material on record. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal determined the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years and applied the multiplier of 17, whereas as per the 2nd Schedule appended with the MV Act, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied in the present case. In this view of the matter, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low and hence, the quantum of compensation needs to be enhanced.;