- (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 8.5.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Claim Case No.13/2014.
(2.) Brief facts noticed are that on 17.11.2013 one Ranglal Gurjar at about 6:30 P.M. had brought goods of Vishwakarma Shreefed Dayarampura in the Truck bearing registration No.RJ14 2G 6728 opposite Vinayak Restaurant, and after parking his truck while he was crossing the road, one Tata Indica car bearing registration no.RJ14 TA 4232 hit him, on account of which he received injuries, he was carried in the Ambulance 108 to the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, and during the course of his treatment, he expired. It was claimed that the injury was caused on account of the vehicle being run in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of said Tata Indica car. FIR No.539/2013 was lodged at Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur, under Sections 279, 304A IPC, and after completion of investigation police filed charge-sheet against the driver of Tata Indica car, respondent No.6 herein, under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the claim petition filed by the dependants of the deceased before the Tribunal, compensation of Rs.1,59,20,000/- was claimed. However, the Tribunal after analysing various material and circumstances and relying on various judgments, awarded Rs.13,85,000/- to the claimants.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company contended that the claim itself is unjustified and the Tribunal had ignored various discrepancies noticed during the course of statements of so many witnesses which were contradictory. He also contended that there is no material on record to prove that the deceased died on account of accident with Tata Indica car. He further contended that if the statements of the witnesses are to be believed, then it was on account of own mistake of the deceased that he received injuries and he was not hit by the said Tata Indica car, and that the claim awarded by the Tribunal treating monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- is abnormal, so also the other factors like the multiplier adopted and the amount awarded is exorbitant. He also contended that future prospects could not have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal as his income was not fixed, he was merely a driver and that there was no permanency of his employment. He contended that the order itself is perverse and requires to be interfered with by this court.;