R.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) The unfortunate death of Deepak Bansal in an accident, an award of Rs. 3,28,305 has not deterred the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth to be referred to as 'the R.S.R.T.C.' for short) from challenging the award dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 28.8.2003 Deepak Bansal was riding his motor cycle in the afternoon. A Corporation bus bearing registration No. RJ 01-P 4066, which was driven rashly and negligently, hit Deepak from behind and injured him. Deepak was immediately hospitalised, but after 2 days he died. According to the post-mortem report the cause of death was shock due to gangrene of the wound on the thighs caused by the accident. Subsequently, Deepak's parents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The R.S.R.T.C. contested the claim petition. The Tribunal framed five issues. In order to substantiate their case, claimants have examined two witnesses and submitted 32 documents. The R.S.R.T.C. examined a single witness. After examining the oral and documentary evidence vide order dated 23.11.2005, the learned Claims Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal by R.S.R.T.C. before us.
(3.) Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. has raised five contentions before us. Firstly, that the F.I.R. about the alleged accident was lodged after Deepak's death. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that death was caused by the alleged accident. Thirdly, relying on the case of Donat Louis Machado v. L. Ravindra, 1999 ACJ 1400 (SC), the learned counsel has argued that an unmarried person is presumed to spend 2/3rd of his earnings on his own family once he gets married, and only one-third on his parents. Therefore, according to the learned counsel loss of dependency calculated by learned Tribunal should have been only one-third of the earnings of the deceased and not 2/3rd. She has further contended that the income is on the higher side and is not supported by any evidentiary basis. Lastly, according to her once the correct multiplier is applied it takes care of all the non-pecuniary losses suffered by the dependants. Therefore, no compensation needs to be paid to claimants for the non-pecuniary losses.;