MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bikaner dated November 17, 1988 by which the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 3 have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,00. 0/- with interest at the rate of 12% P. A. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON March 23, 1985, the deceased Mangilal met with an accident near the Orphanalge, Gajner Road, Bikaner. During these days, Mangilal was working as a Book Lifter in the Vaterinary & Animal Science College Bikaner. The case of the claimants is that the accident took place with the Jeep No. RRK 8970 which was being driven rashly & negligently by the appellant Desh raj and was belonging to the State of Rajasthan. The case of the opposite parties-appellants is that the accident was caused by a truck and the appellant Desh raj took the injured Mangilal to the hospital and brought his wife and mother from their home to the hospital. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the accident took place with the said jeep and not by a truck. It further held that the jeep driver Deshraj was driving the jeep rashly & negligently. It awarded Rs. 1,30,000/-as compensation with interest by its judgment under appeal. It has been contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the appellant Deshraj that it is not proved that the accident took place with the jeep No. RRK 8970. There is no substance in this contention. It is well proved from the statement of the eye witness Bhanwarlal PW 8 that the accident took place with the jeep RRK 8970 and not with a truck. It is further well proved that on being given information by him, F. I. R. Ex. P. 5 was lodged in the police station, Sadar Bikaner, the same day by Arjun, brother of the deceased Mangilal. Jeep Driver appellant Deshraj NAW 3 admits in his cross-examination that Bhanwarlal PW 8 pointed out the house of the deceased and he also came with the jeep. The widow of the deceased Meera PW 9 has deposed that the jeep driver came to her bouse and told her that her husband had met with an accident with his jeep and had been admitted in the hospital, he took them to the hospital and there he gave Rs. 50/- to her for his treatment. Nothing damaging could be elicited out in the lengthy cross-examination of Bhanwar Lal PW 8 and Meera PW 9. The learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon their statements. The learned Tribunal has thoroughly discussed the evidence of the opposite party appellants. The defence is that the accident was caused by a truck, the crowd standing near the injured Mangilal told the jeep driver Desh raj that the accident had been caused by a truck and the injured Mangilal also disclosed to Deshraj that a truck has caused the accident while he was taking him to the hospital. The case of the claimants is that Mangilal was so seriously injured that he was unable to speak. No suggetion was put in the cross-examination to Dr. P. N. Mathur P. W. 3 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Deshraj that the injured was in a position to speak immediately after his accident. Bhanwarlal Pw 8 has categorically stated on oath that immediately after the accident, injured Mangilal was not speaking and he raised his hands towards the jeep driver Deshraj pointing out that he had caused the accident. It is stated in para No. 18 of the written statement that Ghewar Singh, Omprakash & Darshan Singh placed the injured in the jeep and accompanied him to the hospital. Deshraj NAW 3 disclosed in his cross-examination that he did not know Darshan Singh. The defence is that the jeep was being taken by its driver Deshraj for certain repairs and repairs were carried out subsequently. Admittedly, logbook, bills and vouchers in respect of the repairs were not produced. The name of the Mistry was also not disclosed. It is also not in dispute that the opposite parties did not disclose to the police during the investigation that the accident took place with a truck and Ghewar Singh, Omprakash & Darshan Singh had witnessed it. Under these facts & circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was caused by the jeep RRK 8970. There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Deshraj and the learned Deputy Government Advocate that it is not proved from the evidence on record that the accident took place due to rash & negligent driving of the jeep by Deshraj. The eye-witness Bhanwar Lal P. W. 8. has categorically stated on eath that immediately before the accident, jeep was being driven with an excessive speed, it was wavering on the road, Mangilal was going on the kachi patri of the road with his cycle (cycle was not being driven but was being carried on), jeep dashed him from his back side and as a result there of, he fell down and jeep stopped at a distance of 15-20 feet. His statement finds corroboration from the site-plan Ex. P. 6. It may also be mentioned here that he has not been effectively cross-examined on this aspect of the case. Thus it is well proved from the statement that the accident took place due to rash & negligent driving of the jeep by its driver Deshraj appellant. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Government Advocate that no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was given before filing the claim petition. It is not in dispute that Section 80, C. P. C. was not made applicable either by Section 110-C, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or Rule 20, Rajasthan Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964. Even according to the provisions of Section 80, C. P. C. , they are applicable to suit only and not to claim petitions.
(3.) IT was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Deshraj and the learned Deputy Government Advocate that he amount of compensa-tion awarded is very excessive. This contantion is also devoid of force. IT is well proved from the evidence on record that the age of Mangilal on the date of the accident was 32 years and he was serving as a Book Lifter in the Veterinary Science College, Bikaner, IT is further proved from the evidence on record that he was getting Rs. 750/- per month as pay, D. A. and other allowances. IT is not in dispute that the claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased. His widow Mst. Meera P. W. 9 has disclosed in her examination-in-chief that her son was born after two months of the accident. She ha % also disclosed that her husband used to spend almost all his earning on them, If Mangilal would not have died in the accident, he would have lived upto the age of at least 65 years i. e. , for 33 years more. Deducting the one-third amount from his earnings as expenses on himself, Rs. 500/- were being spent by him on the claimants. IT means that he was spending Rs. 6,000/- per annum on the claimants. As such award of Rs. 1, 30, 000/- as compensation cannot be said to be excessive or exhorbitant. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has been miser in awarding the compensation. IT has not awarded any amount towards the funeral expenses of deceased Mangilal. Loss of pension, gratuity and provident fund have also not been taken into consideration. Thus there is no force in the appeals. Consequently, the appeals are summerily dismissed. . ;