- (1.) THE appeal u/s. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated 7. 10. 1994 passed by the learned Motor Accidents' Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- to the respondent-claimants. THE learned Tribunal has further awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 5. 3. 1990 till the date of recovery.
(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that on 8. 12. 1989, deceased Shankerlal was travelling in Tractor No. RRK 1468, which was being driven by appellant No. 1 Rakesh. It is alleged that the appellant No. 1 Rakesh drove the above vehicle very rashly and negligently, as a result of which, Shankerlal fell down from the Tractor and was run over by its front wheel. An FIR of this occurrence Ex. P/3 was lodged by one Manoharlal at Police Station, Hindumalkot on 9. 12. 1989. Thereupon, the police registered a case and started investigation. The site was inspected and site plan Ex. P/4 and site inspection memo Ex. P/5 were prepared. After investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet Ex. P/6 before the Criminal Court. In the FIR, it has been mentioned by Manohar- lal that he was informed by one Balwant that Shankerlal was run over by the tractor. Thereupon, he called Rakesh and made enquiries. Rakesh told that Shnaker who was under the inflence of liquor fell down and run over by the wheel of the tractor. Rakesh and Bharuram lifted the dead body and left it in front of his house. Claimant-respondent No. 1 is the wife of deceased Shanker and claimants respondent No. 2 and 3 are his sons and claimant- respondent No. 4 is his daughter. Claimant-respondents No. 5 & 6 are his parents. The claimant- appellants submitted a claim of Rs. 4,63,00/ -. During the pendency of the claim-petition, claimant respondent No. 5 Nihalchand expired and therefore, his name was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 28. 5. 1992. The claim petition was resisted by the appellants denying all the averments made in the claim petition in toto. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues on 30. 7. 1992. Issue No. 1 was with regard to the rash and negligent act of appellant No. 1, which resulted in the death of Shankerlal. The parties led evidence. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award as aforesaid.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal held that there were no eye-witnesses, and, therefore, it was not possible for the claimants to lead direct evidence regarding the above accident in which Shankerlal was crushed to death by rash and negligent act of appellant No. 1 in driving the above Tractor. THE learned Tribunal then referred to the evidence produced in the case and particularly the circumstances available on record and concluded that from the preponderance of the evidence, it was proved that the death of Shankerlal was caused by appellant No. 1, which resulted on account of driving the above tractor rashly and negligently as Shankerlal fell down and was run over by the wheel of the Tractor. Regarding compensation, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased was 40 years old and was earning about Rs. 900/- per month. He applied multiplier of 25 and then determined the compensation. The learned Tribunal further allowed damages on account of consortium as also funeral expenses. In all, the Award of Rs. 1,54,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants. I have heard Mr. J. Gehlot, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. S. Gill, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case. ;