Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Ramesh Singh And Ors. on 17 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: II(2004)ACC530, 2005ACJ919, 2003WLC(RAJ)UC767
Author: H.R. Panwar
Bench: H.R. Panwar
JUDGMENT H.R. Panwar, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and award dated 2.6.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,40,000 in favour of the respondent-claimant Nos. 1 and 2 (for short 'the claimants') and against the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and its driver respondent No. 3, Champa Lal. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award impugned, the Corporation has filed the instant appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award impugned. I have also gone through the record of the Tribunal.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant Corporation that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the award in favour of the claimants; deceased Radha Bai was an employee of the Corporation on the relevant date of the accident, therefore, Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'E.S.I. Act') creates a bar for receiving or recovering of compensation for damages under any other law; deceased was a 'workman' being an employee of the Corporation, therefore, even if her legal heirs are entitled for any compensation then too the proper forum, before whom the compensation can be claimed, is the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the W.C. Act'); and as respondents-claimants (for short 'the claimants') are the major sons of the deceased, therefore, they cannot be said to be dependent on the income of the deceased. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a single Bench judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Chameli Devi v. Delhi Trans. Corporation, 1990 ACJ 482 (P&H). On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimants has supported the judgment of the Tribunal.
4. The Corporation filed written statement before the Tribunal. In para 11 of the written statement (while replying para 24 of the claim petition), it was pleaded by the Corporation that the deceased was given compassionate employment on the death of her husband. The claimants, who are aged about 18 to 20 years have become major and they are competent to earn their livelihood and, therefore, they were not dependent on the deceased and they can be dependent on each other. In para 2 of the additional pleas, it was pleaded that the deceased Radha Bai died while on duty and, therefore, the claim ought to have been filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and on this premises, it was pleaded that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. No other plea was raised in the written statement. On these pleadings of the Corporation, the Tribunal framed issue No. 4, but the Corporation did not lead any evidence to prove that issue and accordingly it was decided against the Corporation.
5. In Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P., 1996 ACJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court negatived the reasoning given by the High Court for reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,45,000 to Rs. 85,000 on the ground that the claimants would have secured only Rs. 85,000 by way of compensation if he had moved the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The Apex Court observed as under:
"We do not think that the High Court was right in accepting that reasoning on the facts of this case when the finding is that the accident had occasioned while the roadroller was on the move and the negligence was on the part of the person who drove the roadroller belonging to the respondent."
6. Section 167 of the Act provides an option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. The section envisages that notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923), where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. From the plain reading of the section, it is abundantly clear that the claimants have the option to claim compensation either under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Thus, the deceased, being a 'workman' of the Corporation, the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal would not be ousted and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation in this regard cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
7. So far as bar against receiving or recovering the compensation, as envisaged under Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act is concerned, the Corporation has not made any such foundation before the Tribunal and in the whole of the written statement, it nowhere appears that the Corporation has even taken such a plea of bar. Neither the plea was taken, nor was the issue framed and furthermore, the Corporation did not lead any evidence to this effect before the Tribunal. So much so, the Corporation has not raised any such contention or argument before the Tribunal and it is for the first time that the contention has been raised before this court, which otherwise cannot be accepted.
8. More so, there is nothing on record to show that the legal heirs of the deceased were given any compensation by the Corporation under the E.S.I. Act. There is also nothing on the record to suggest that they received any benefit payable under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act and in absence thereof, there cannot be a bar for claiming the compensation under the Act. More so, the said plea has been taken by the appellant Corporation without laying any foundation.
9. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that both the claimants, who are sons of the deceased, have attained majority. AW 3 Ramesh Singh deposed on oath before the Tribunal that on 4.1.1994, due to the accident caused by the bus owned by the Corporation, his mother Radha Bai (aged about 40 years) died and his younger brother Dalpat Singh was a student and unemployed person of 20 years. He further stated that both the brothers were wholly dependent on the income of their mother (the deceased Radha Bai). The statement of this witness remained uncontroverted. Thus, from the uncontroverted statement of the claimant, it is fully established that on the relevant date of accident, both the claimants were dependent on the income of their deceased mother as they were her legal representatives.
10. The deceased, on the relevant date of accident, was a permanent employee, having a stable job and he used to earn Rs. 1,826 per month as salary, as is clear from Exh. 3. Out of this earnings, the Tribunal determined her contribution to the claimants at Rs. 1,000 per month. Thus, the annual contribution determined by the Claims Tribunal was Rs. 12,000, which was multiplied by 10 years' purchase-factor. In view of the fact that the deceased was having a stable job, being a permanent employee on regular pay scale, the annual contribution of Rs. 12,000 cannot be said to be on higher side; on the contrary, it is just and proper.
11. So far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10 years' purchase-factor. The Second Schedule to Sections 163A and 163B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the multiplier of 16 for the age group between 35 and 40 years. Viewed from any standpoint, the multiplier of 10, applied by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be excessive.
12. Punjab & Haryana High Court in Chameli Devi, 1990 ACJ 482 (P&H), allowed compensation to the old mother and the widow of the deceased but denied the same to the sons of the deceased who were about 30 years old and having independent income being the Government employees. The denial of compensation to his sons was on the ground that they themselves were independent and earnings of the deceased used to be contributed to his widow and mother and as such the compensation was awarded in favour of the widow and the mother of the deceased. It cannot be a case that where the claimants are major, no compensation can be awarded to them. This is not the intention of the legislature. It is to be seen as to whether deceased used to contribute from her earnings to the claimants and if it is established that she used to contribute then there can be no reason for denial of compensation even if the claimants attained the majority.
13. In the instant case, one of the claimants was aged about 18 years and the another about 20 years at the time of the accidental death of their mother. They have just attained majority and were unemployed as one of them, being a student, was definitely dependent on the income of their mother and had she not died in the accident, the son would have continued with the study, but for the tragic death, he was to give up his further study. Under such circumstances, compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. It is settled law that in appeal, the quantum of compensation is interfered if the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is either inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. For the death of an employed lady of 40 years, a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 awarded by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be excessive, hence calls for no interference.
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.