J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant appeal is directed against award dated 15.7.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Claim Case No. 316/2013, whereby award for Rs. 9,90,775/ - has been allowed in favour of the claimants.
(2.) Brief facts noticed are that on 16.5.2011 at about 3:40 PM when Vijendra Singh was travelling in his own jeep bearing No. RJ18 C 3277 for going to Barsinga from Gunga, on Barmer -Jaisalmer National Highway No. 15, after he crossed Gunga Police Check -post, a Roadways bus bearing No. RJ10 PA 0076, being driven in high speed and in rash and negligent manner coming from opposite direction, came on wrong side and collided with the jeep of Vijendra Singh. Consequently, Vijendra Singh received grievous injuries and died on the spot. Challan was filed, so also charge -sheet and thereafter the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a compensation to the extent of Rs. 39,45,000/ -. The Tribunal framed four issues and all of them were decided against the appellants. The Tribunal after analysing the material, allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 9,90,775/ -, which is assailed herein.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants contended that there was negligence of Vijendra Singh rather than negligence of the driver of the appellant -Corporation, namely Hukum Singh, who was driving the bus on his own side in slow speed, and it was claimed by Hukum Singh that the jeep of Vijendra Singh came on wrong side due to which the accident occurred and, therefore, he contends that there was contributory negligence of Vijendra Singh as well which has not been considered by the Tribunal in passing the impugned award. He further contended that the claim has been allowed in a cursory manner and not in accordance with law and after analysing the material on record. He further contended that the quantum allowed at Rs. 9,90,775/ - is highly excessive and abnormal taking into consideration the fact that widow of the deceased Santara Devi, is said to be earning on her own and was not dependant on her husband. It is also contended that in her cross -examination Santara Devi has stated that her husband was residing at a different place on account of his employment. He further contended that no income was pleaded of the deceased and even future prospect ought not to have been allowed by the Tribunal, when even there was no permanency of income or otherwise. He further contended that expenditure of Rs. 1,55,000/ - has separately been allowed for the damage to the jeep, but without any basis and going into the extent of the damage to the jeep and merely on the basis of the bills produced by the claimants before the Tribunal, and contended that the award of the Tribunal is perverse and requires consideration. In support of his contentions, counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashikala v/s. Gangalakshmamma : (2015) 0 Supreme (SC) 280.;