Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Ratan vs Shobha & Ors on 1 April, 2013
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:JUDGMENT:
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.665/2009
Ram Ratan
Vs.
Shobha and Ors.
Date of Judgment :: 01.04.2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. B.L. Choudhary, for the appellant.
Mr. S.Saruparia, for the respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr. S.S. Rathore for Dr. P.S. Bhati, for the respondent No.6.
----
BY THE COURT:
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been preferred by the driver aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 7.3.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants has been accepted and an award of Rs.4,49,000/- have been passed in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition.
The facts in brief are that the claimants filed a claim petition with the averments that Ramnarayan, who was aged about 35 years, was going on motor-cycle from Khajwana to Mundwa on 4.8.2007 when at around 8-8:15 a.m. the offending tractor being No.RJ-21-R-1281, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Ramratan struck Ramnarayan and he died on 2 account of the injuries suffered from the said accident. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.91,74,000/- as compensation and stated that the deceased Ramnarayan owned a Turbo truck and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from operating the said truck and he was also earning by agriculture operations.
No reply to the claim petition was filed by the owner. However, the appellant-driver filed reply to the claim petition and it was inter-alia submitted that the deceased Ramnarayan was drunk at the time of accident and, therefore, he had contributed to the said accident. Rest of the averments and the facts relating to the claim of compensation were denied.
On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses AW-1 Shobha and AW-2 Gautam Ram were examined and documents Exhibit-1 to 12 were exhibited. The appellant-driver appeared as NAW-1. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, which resulted into accident leading to the death of Ramnarayan. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased as Rs.3000/- per month and after taking into consideration, the usual deduction awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.20,000/- were awarded for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- each was awarded to the children of the deceased for loss of love & affection and Rs.5,000/- were awarded towards funeral expenses, in all a sum of Rs.4,49,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 16.10.2007.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that 3 the award impugned is based on conjecture and surmises, inasmuch as, a bare look at the post mortem report shows that deceased was drunk at the time of death i.e. at the time of accident and, therefore, it could safely be said that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased and not of the appellant-driver. The awarded compensation was based on no evidence and as such the impugned award deserves to be set- aside.
On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents-claimants that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. It was submitted that the appellant has given three different versions relating to the accident and as such, on account of his vacillating stand, no credence may be given to the said version.
The counsel appearing for the owner duly supported the appeal of the appellant and it was also submitted that the liability is of the driver only and the owner is not liable.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as award passed by the Claims Tribunal.
The Claims Tribunal while dealing with issue No.1, which relates to the negligence of the driver, has recorded a categoric finding that the driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, which resulted in accident. A look at the site map Exhibit-3 reveals that the accident took place at the extreme left side of the road from Khajwana to Mundwa and the deceased Ramnarayan was travelling on his mother-cycle from Khajwana to Mundwa. Whereas, the tractor was moving from 4 Mundwa to Khajwana, therefore, applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it is apparent that the deceased was going on correct side of the road and the tractor struck him by coming on the wrong side, which resulted into accident and the death of Ramnarayan. The fact that deceased Ramnarayan had consumed liquor at the time of accident is of no consequence as it cannot be said that if a person has consumed liquor and was driving the vehicle on correct side and if he is struck by a vehicle being driven on the wrong side of the road, still it would be assumed that he was negligent or he contributed in the said accident.
In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding on the negligence of the appellant.
The issue relating to the award of compensation has also properly been decided and compensation assessed by the learned tribunal, whereby an income of Rs.3,000/- per month only has been attributed to the deceased. The deceased was owing a turbo truck and was operating the same. The income of Rs.3,000/- p.m. in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be excessive. The award of compensation under other heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss of love & affection to the claimants also cannot be said to be excessive so as to require interference by this Court.
So far as the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent-owner is concerned, the same has been noticed only for the purpose of being rejected. The owner has chosen not to file any appeal against the award impugned. Further it is not disputed that the tractor in question involved in the accident was 5 owned by the owner and, therefore, he is vicariously liable.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal has no substance and, therefore, the same is dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 22.1.2010 stands vacated.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
rm/