MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) SINCE the aforesaid three appeals arise out of and pertain to judgment and award dated 19th September, 1997 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals succinctly stated are that on 2nd October, 1995 at about 1.30 in the night, the deceased Deendayal and Shyamsundar were coming by Jeep No.RJ-14-1C-3615 from Amer to Jaipur. No sooner did they reach opposite the Surojpol Grain Mandi, Jaipur on National Highway NO.8, Nathu Lal-the driver of the Jeep while driving it rashly and negligently, collided with truck No.DL-1G-5174 coming from the opposite direction, resulting into the death of both Deendayal and Shyamsundar. It is revealed that truck was being driven by Mukesh Kumar and Jeep was being driven by Nathu Lal, who were in the employment of the owners of the truck and jeep, respectively. THE truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Jaipur and the Jeep was insured with United India Insurance Co.Ltd. THE deceased Deendayal, at the time of accident, was 21 years old and the deceased Shyamsundar was of the age of 22 years. Appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed these two appeals on the ground that in fact the accident took place on account of the contributory negligence of both the truck and the Jeep drivers. The claimants examined only witness AW/3 Fakeer Mohd., who categorically deposed before the Tribunal that both the Jeep and Truck drivers were driving negligently, which resulted into an accident. The learned Tribunal relied upon police documents and not upon the statement of AW/3 Fakeer Mohd., who was produced by the claimants, hence, the impugned award being both against the fact and law, should be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of AW/3 Fakeer Mohd. who happens to be an eye witness of the accident. This witness has in unequivocal terms deposed before the Tribunal that he had seen the accident and both the drivers of the truck and jeep were driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently, which resulted into the accident. The witness was subjected to cross-examination by both the Insurance Companies and his statement on this fact remained uncontroverted. Learned counsel has contended that the learned Tribunal relied upon the police documents and abandoned the testimony of AW/3 Fakeer Mohd., whereas there seems to be no reason not to rely upon his evidence. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, in contra, took me through the site-plan Ex.8 and contended that the offending Jeep was coming from North direction to South direction and the truck was in a position to move towards North coming from South direction. He further canvassed that it is the Jeep driver who came on a wrong side and collided with the truck resulting into the death of Deendayal and Shyamsundar. It was the sole negligence of the Jeep driver who collided with the Truck and caused the accident. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a just and fair conclusion by holding that the driver of the Jeep was negligent in driving and the Insurance Co. with which the Jeep was insured was liable to pay compensation. Now adverting to the facts of the instant appeals as also the site plan Ex.8 and description memo attached thereto, it is revealed that both the truck and jeep have been shown moving in their respective directions by the marks of the arrows. Jeep is found to have coming from the direction of North towards South direction, whereas the truck was going from the South direction to North. At point 'B' shown in site-plan in Ex.8, the accident is alleged to have taken place. The road has been shown as 30 feet wide. The Jeep is found to have wrongly gone into West direction, where the accident has been shown to have taken place. The description memo reflects that there were marks of accident on the left side of both the Truck and the Jeep. It has emerged in the investigation papers that the driver of the truck endeavoured to avoid the accident and it was the reason that the Jeep collided on the left side of the truck. Had there been a head on collision, the vehicles would have got the marks of accident on front portion of the vehicles or on the right side of the vehicles but in the instant case, the marks of accident have been found on the left side of both the vehicles which tangibly suggests that the truck was on its right side and it was only the driver of the Jeep who came from the left side to right side and collided with the left side of the truck leaving the marks of accident on the left side of both the vehicles. Thus from no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the driver of the truck was at all negligently driving his motor-vehicle. From the above discussion and the evidence on record, it can safely be inferred that it was the driver of Jeep only on account of whose sole negligence the accident took place, which resulted into the death of both Deendayal and Shyamsundar. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. His argument is found to be untenable. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence emerging in the instant case and further has rightly relied upon the site-plan Ex.8 and other evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of this case. The finding in this regard arrived at by the learned Tribunal is based on cogent reasoning with which I fully concur. The claimants-appelalnts have preferred this appeal for the enhancement of quantum of compensation and prayed to raise the amount of compensation from Rs.2,31,000/- to Rs.30,18,000/- as claimed in the claim petitoin. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Co. and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is found that the appellants failed to prove Rs.4,000/- or Rs.4,500/- to be the monthly income of the deceased Shyamsundar. It is stated that the deceased was working with the Fabrico Printers but it has not been proved as to whether any Fabrico Printers existed or not. Neither the salary of the deceased was proved nor any evidence was adduced to prove the same. In the absence of any document with regard to the income, the learned Tribunal considered the prevalent minimum wages of the relevant time and computed the quantum of compensation accordingly.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal has also considered the age of the deceased in right perspective and the multiplier also has been applied as per the IInd Scheduled of the Motor Vehicles Act. THE discussion with regard to computing the quantum of compensation is found to be apt and accurate. It is not general in nature. THE finding of the Tribunal is well merited, which warrants no intervention. Since all the three appeals have arisen out of the impugned judgment and award dated 19th September, 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, it is borne out from the above discussion that the impugned award is well merited and suffers from no infirmity. The learned Tribunal has considered all the aspects of claim petitions in right perspective and fairly appreciated the ocular and documentary evidence available on record. I am in full agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal and to my firm view too, the impugned award does not call for any intervention and thus all the three appeals deserve to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, all the aforesaid three appeals fail and the same being bereft of merits, stand dismissed. No order as to costs.;