HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1114/2019
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Through
C.m.d. (Owner Of Bus No. Rj-01-Pa-1486)
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer Depot
Through Depot Manager (Owner Of Bus No. Rj-01-Pa-1486)
Having Its Head Office At Parivahan House, Parivahan Marg,
Chomu House, Jaipur Raj. Both Are Represented Through Their
Officer Incharge.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Parasram Chaudhary S/o Shri Ram Kumar Chaudhary, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o House No. D-3, Sarkari Awas, Police
Station Kunhadi, Kota.
2. Smt. Sharimila Chaudhary W/o Parasram Chaudhary, Aged
About 43 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o House No. D-3, Sarkari
Awas, Police Station Kunhadi, Kota.
3. Pratap Lal Meena S/o Shri Ramdev, R/o Jawra, Police Station
Sawar, District Ajmer (Driver Of Bus No. Rj-01-Pa-1486)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv.(through video conference) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Sharma, Adv.(through video conference) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 15/04/2021 I.A. No.01/2020:-
Learned counsel for the respondents/applicants does not want to press this application.
Therefore, this application is dismissed as withdrawn as not pressed.
In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1114/2019:- (Downloaded on 16/04/2021 at 08:50:06 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-1114/2019] The present appeal is finally decided with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1, Kota (for short "The Tribunal") whereby respondents were directed to pay Rs.14,02,896/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 08.02.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the issue relating to negligence has not taken into consideration the fact that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased himself. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Investigating Officer had not come in the witness-box. So, negligence cannot be attributed to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the appellants examined it's conductor who had clearly stated that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants again submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6810/- per month in absence of any documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Tribunal ought to have assessed Rs.15,000/- per annum as per notional income.
Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses instead of 1/2 amount because the deceased was unmarried. (Downloaded on 16/04/2021 at 08:50:06 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMA-1114/2019] Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the respondents had filed cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the deceased was also doing part time job and getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. So their salary be calculated Rs. 10,810/-. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the meagre amount towards loss of love and affection and also submitted that interest of 18% per annum be awarded.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
The Tribunal in its order rightly decided negligently of the appellant. No need to examine the Investigating Officer in the claim petition. The Tribunal while deciding the income of the deceased rightly calculated the income of the deceased as per the notification of the minimum wages and rightly awarded the 40% as future prospects.
The Tribunal in its order clearly stated that the respondents were solely dependent on deceased. So, the Tribunal has not made any mistake in deducting income as 1/3rd of the personal expenses of the deceased.
So, in view of the above discussions, I find no illegality or infirmity in the learned Tribunal's order, so, present appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, the present appeal stands dismissed. Stay application stands disposed of accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/35 (Downloaded on 16/04/2021 at 08:50:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)