- (1.) SINCE all these appeals relate to the compensation awarded to the claimants with respect of casualties caused by an accident occurred on July 24, 1998, I proceed to decide these appeals by a common order.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that on July 24, 1998 at 8. 15 AM near village Kohada a bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'rsrtc') bearing No. RJ-01/ P-2539 and a jeep bearing No. RJ-26/ P-408 collided as a result of which 14 persons, along with the driver of the jeep, lost their lives. Out of 13 claim petitions filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kekri (Ajmer) (for short 'tribunal') 12 were decided by common award dated December 7, 2001 One claim petition bearing No. 35/2002 was decided on July 4, 2002. Appeals No. 1911/2002 and 1840/2002 pertains to the award dated July 4, 2002 and in the remaining appeals award dated December 7, 2001 is under challenge. In appeal No. 1991/2002 claimants have prayed to enhance the award. Learned Tribunal in the impugned award held that the RSRTC and Insurance Company were respectively liable for compensation at the ratio of 25% and 75%. It is contended on behalf of RSRTC that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the jeep driver. Moti Singh, driver of the bus of RSRTC lodged FIR (Ex. 1) at Police Station Kekri wherein it was stated that the jeep came to the wrong side and collided with the Bus. This fact stood corroborated by all the witnesses examined by the claimants. Even the site plan (Ex. 12) clearly demonstrates that the jeep was on the wrong side. Since there was no negligence of Bus driver, the RSRTC could not be held liable to pay compensation. The submission of Insurance Company however is that the accident took place because of the negligence of bus driver. Although, the jeep driver was partly negligent, still the Insurance Company was not liable for any compensation as there was breach of terms of policy. The capacity of the jeep was only for 10 passengers but at the time of accident 14 passengers were travelling in the jeep. The driver was also not holding valid licence. No specific finding has been recorded regarding the issue No. 2, 4 and 5 as such the insurance company was wrongly been made liable for the compensation. The claimants Kamla and others were awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,12,000/-, but they are dissatisned with this amount on the ground that agricultural income of the deceased was not considered and proper multiplier was not adopted.
(3.) I have pondered over the submission and scanned the material available on record. A look at the impugned award goes to show that in para 9 of Tribunal observed thus:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The contention of insurance company is that since there was head- on collusion, drivers of both the vehicles ought to have been held equally responsible. Reliance is placed on Bijoy Kumar Dubar vs. Vidyadhar Dutta 2006 (1) WLC (SC) 757, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated as under:- (Para 12) "the MACT, in our view, has rightly observed that had it been the knocking on one side of car, the negligence or rashness could have been wholly fastened or attributable to the driver of the bus, but when the vehicles had a head-on collusion, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to the accident." Having scrutinised the facts of the instant case, I notice that although it was the driver of the jeep who drove the jeep rashly and negligently but the driver of bus was also driving the bus at a fast speed. Even according to Ram Dayal (PW. 12) the bus was driven at a speed of 90-95 Km per hour. In my opinion the Tribunal has rightly held that bus driver was also 25% negligent for the accident. I do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the RSRTC that since bus driver lodged the FIR, he could not be held liable. Negligence of the drivers of vehicles could not be measured on the basis of site plan because it only showed the position of vehicles after the accident. ;