AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.C. Sharma, J.—Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and its Chief Manager (in short RSRTC) filed the above misc. appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 21.11.2006 of the Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge (Fast) Track No. 8 Jaipur City Jaipur (in short MACT) in Claim Case No. 928 of 2005 awarding Rs. 14,25,044 to the claimants. After receipt of notice of this appeal the claimants, who are respondents in the appeals (in short claimants) have filed cross objections in the appeal filed by the RSRTC. Since the appeal and the cross objections arise from a common award, it will be proper for this Court to decide the appeal and the cross objections by this common order. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.4.2003 Mandar Das Jain, Kapil Aggarwal and deceased Govind Raisinghani had hired Indica Car No. RJ 14 P 4698 and had gone to Ratangarh on official work from where, after completing the work, had started for Pilani. At around 2.00 p.m. as soon as they had reached near Tidiasar Stand on National High Way No. 11, one Roadways Bus No. RJ 31 P 0933 came from Jaipur side in a rash and negligent manner being driven by its driver and hit the Indica Car in wrong side due to which the Indica car got damaged and the occupants received injuries. Deceased Govind Raisinghani received grievous injuries and during the treatment in Ratangarh Hospital, he died and further pointed out that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the driver of RSRTC bus. As the accident had taken place due to fault of the driver of the RSRTC an FIR was also registered and after investigation challan was filed. The claimants filed a claim petition for awarding compensation on account of death of Govind Raisinghani.
Reply to the claim petition was filed by the RSRTC and issues were framed. After hearing both the parties, the MACT awarded Rs. 14,25,044 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 7.8.2003 till the date of payment to the claimants. Against the said award, the RSRTC preferred the appeal and the claimants filed cross objections for enhancement of the compensation.
The learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC has contended that the award dated 21.11.2006 is against the provisions of law and it is legally not sustainable in the eye of law as it is quite clear that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the RSRTC bus and the accident had actually taken place due to the fault of driver of Indica car which is quite clear from the fact that in the criminal case the driver of the RSRTC bus was acquitted by the criminal Court vide judgment dated 11.4.2005. He has further contended that in the criminal case the witnesses PW. 2 Bandar Das and PW. 3 Kapil Aggarwal were not able to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RSRTC Bus. He has further contended that the MACT was incorrect in not relying upon the evidence of NAW 1 Ram Narain who was conductor of the RSRTC Bus, who has categorically stated that the Indica car came at a very fast speed and the driver of the bus had stopped the bus on the side of the road and yet the Indica car hit the bus and over turned. Hence the award of the MACT in awarding the compensation to the claimants is liable to be set aside making the appellants completely liable. He has further contended that the MACT has incorrectly assessed the loss of income while calculating the compensation and applied multiplier of 11. The MACT has also not considered the fact that the claimants were to receive family pension and other benefits of service of the deceased and also one member of the family could get service on compassionate ground. The award of the MACT is incorrect in awarding the above compensation mentioned above, hence the award is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has contended that the award of the MACT has to be modified in the light of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in G.M. K.S.R.T.C. vs. Sushamma Thomas, reported in 1994 ACT page 1 in which the Apex Court has laid down the principles that it was obligatory for the Tribunal to award the amount of compensation multiplying double of the income of the deceased. Looking to the facts and circumstances the amount of award as assessed by the MACT is therefore deserves to be enhanced upto the claimed amount. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , paras 43, 44, 48 and 49, which are reproduced hereunder:
In this case as noticed above the salary of the deceased at the time of death was Rs. 4004. By applying the principles enunciated by this Court to the evidence, the High Court concluded that the salary would have at least doubled (Rs. 8008) by the time of his retirement and consequently, determined the monthly income as an average of Rs. 4004 and Rs. 8008 that is Rs. 6006 per month or Rs. 72,072 per annum. We find that the said conclusion is in conformity with the legal principle that about 50% can be added to the actual salary, by taking note of the future prospects.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when actual figures as to what would be the income in future, are available it is not proper to take a nominal hypothetical increase of only 50% for calculating the income. He submitted that though the deceased was receiving Rs. 4004 per month at the time of death, as per the certificates issued by the employer (produced before the High Court), on the basis of pay revisions and increases, his salary would have been Rs. 32,678 in the year 2005 and there is no reason why the said amount should not be considered as the income at the time of retirement. It was contended that the income which is to form the basis for calculation should not therefore be the average of Rs. 4004 and Rs. 8008, but the average of Rs. 4004 and Rs. 32,678.
The appellants next contended that having regard to the fact that the family of the deceased consisted of 8 members including himself and as the entire family was dependent on him, the deduction on account of personal and living expenses of the deceased should be neither the standard one-third, nor one-fourth as assessed by the High Court, but one-eighth. We agree with the contention that the deduction on account of personal living expenses cannot be at a fixed one-third in all cases (unless the calculation is under Sec. 163-A read with the Second Schedule to the MV Act). The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses can certainly vary with reference to the number of dependant members in the family. But as noticed earlier, the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants.
As an earning member, the deceased would have spent more on himself than the other members of the family apart from the fact that he would have incurred expenditure on travelling/transportation and other needs. Therefore we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if one-fifth is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction, the contribution to the family (dependants) is determined as Rs. 57,658 per annum. The multiplier will be 15 having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of death (38 years). Therefore the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 57,658 x 15 = Rs. 8,64,870.
He has further contended that admittedly the income of the deceased was Rs. 19,168/- per month and the MACT has assessed the income of the deceased only Rs. 16,000/- per month and he has further drawn the attention of this Court that the MACT has awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum whereas as per the law laid down by the Apex Court the interest should have been at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. He has further drawn the attention of this Court that it is a case of rash and negligence of the driver of the Bus of the RSRTC and hence the award of the MACT dated 21.11.2006 may be modified. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the award dated 22.11.2006 passed by the MACT. The MACT has given reasons after considering the evidence of the parties and the findings on the issues cannot be set aside. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case I do not think it proper to allow the appeal filed by the RSRTC against the award dated 21.11.2006 but looking to the judgments of the Apex Court indicated above I direct the MACT to re-decide the matter regarding the awarding of compensation in the amount of Rs. 14,25,044/- to the claimants while deciding issue No. 4 and decide the issue No. 4 as a fresh in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court mentioned above and the award of the MACT qua issue No. 4 is set aside and the MACT is further directed to release the amount of compensation as directed in the award and if it is not released the same should be given to the claimants as per the award. The MACT is directed to decide the issue No. 4 within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the MACT on 28.8.2012. The cross objections filed by the claimants are accordingly allowed and the appeal filed by the RSRTC stands rejected as indicated above.