Sheela vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The claimant appellant has filed this appeal challenging the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 128 of 1990 vide judgment/award dated 2.8.1996 in respect of issue Nos. 1 and 4. In issue No. 1, Tribunal held that scooter rider was also responsible for this accident. In issue No. 4, the Tribunal held that the deceased-sdooter rider was responsible for this accident upto 70% whereas bus driver was responsible upto 30%. While deciding issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal passed an award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, but in view of finding of issue Nos. 1 and 4, deducted 70% out of it and directed to make the payment of remaining amount of 30% i.e., Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the appellant.

Initially, the claimants Mahaveer and Smt. Sheela, parents of deceased Sandeep Jain filed an application for compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi a in respect of death of Sandeep Jain in an accident, which took place on 24.5.1990 arising out of use of motor vehicle. The claimant Mahaveer died during the pendency of claim application. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record decided the claim application vide impugned judgment as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality in deciding issue No. 4 helding the scooter rider liable for this accident upto 70%. He further contended that from the statements of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and the site plan, it is clear the there was no negligence on the part of the scooter rider i.e., deceased. He also contended that the deceased was 18 years of age and was to appear in PET examination. He was a meritorious student, therefore, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded in the present case is a meagre amount and it should be enhanced to a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000 at least. He contended that Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court has awarded Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation in the cases of death of even minor in motor accident.

Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and thereafter recorded its finding in respect of issue Nos. 2 and 4, therefore, no interference in the impugned award is called for by this Court.

I have considered the rival submission and examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of the Tribunal.

There is no dispute that the First Information Report No. 90/94 was registered in respect of this accident and after completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the bus driver for the offence u/s 304A IPC. NAW-1 Prabhu Singh, bus driver had admitted in his statement during his cross-examination that he is facing trial of criminal case pending in the Court of A.M.J.M. 1st. He is also facing the department inquiry in respect of this accident. Ex. 3 is the site plan prepared by the police during investigations and upon bare perusal thereof, it shows that there was a curve on the road, the truck as well as the scooter, both were going from Devli to Bundi and bus was coming from Bundi to Devli. The arrow marked in the site plan Ex. 3 shows that bus was going at the road curve at its right side i.e., wrong side and it appears that after accident the bus was taken towards the left side on the road. A.W. 2 Deendayal and A.W. 3 Arun Jangid, both were eye-witnesses of this accident, who have stated in their statements that the scooter rider Sandeep Jain and they were going on scooter from Devli to Lakreshwar Mahadev towards Bundi. One truck was also going Bundi near Village Basni. The truck gave them side and they crossed the truck, but all of sudden the bus belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation came from opposite side. The bus was in very high speed and due to curve in the road, the bus came towards wrong side and hit the scooter. They all became unconscious and ultimately, Sandeep died. From the statement of A.W. 2, A.W. 3 and also from the cross-examination of NAW 1 Prabhu Singh, it appears that the bus was coming from Bundi to Devli in high speed and by coming wrong side at road curve, hit the scooter. It was a duty of the bus driver to slow down the speed of the bus at the road curve. The Tribunal has not examined the site plan Ex. 3 properly along with the statements of A.W. 2, A.W. 3 and even the statement of bus driver NAW-1. No doubt that it was a duty of the scooter rider also to go slow and to stop his scooter, but he had already crossed the truck and there was a curve in the road, but bus came in very high speed towards wrong side at the place of curve of the road. The investigation agency also came to a conclusion that the accident took place because of negligent driving on the part of the non applicant No. 1 Prabhu Singh and filed a challan against him. Therefore, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, I find that finding of the Tribunal in respect of issue No. 4 is not correct and I modify the same and hold that bus driver was negligent upto 75% whereas scooter rider was responsible upto 25%.

So far as issue No. 2 relating to-quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the case of minor, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, therefore, looking to the age of the deceased and further that he was a meritorious student, I find that amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, awarded by Tribunal is a meagre amount and the same is a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000 which appears to me to be just and reasonable.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed and amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 is enhanced to a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000 but in view of finding in respect of issue No. 4. the appellant will be entitled to 75% of the amount out of its i.e., Rs. 1,12,500. A sum of Rs. 30,000 has already been paid so the appellant as per award of the Tribunal, therefore, the appellant will now be entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 82,500 from the respondents. The respondents are directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 82,500 in the Tribunal within a period of two months with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 22.11.1990 till the date of deposit of the amount. The entire amount will be deposited in the Monthly Income Scheme of the Post Office for a period of six years in the name of appellant Smt. Sheela and she will be allowed to withdraw the monthly interest occurred thereon. No order as to costs.