DAKUDI Vs. MANA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals arise out of the judgment/award dated August 31, 1982, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, in Claim Cases No. 11/76 (148/1978) (Smt. Dakudi and another vs. Mana Ram and others) and claim petition No. 12/76 (149/1978) (Udai Singh vs. Mana Ram and Others), by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal partly decreed the claim of the claimants.

(2.) ANAND Singh, who was driving an Ambassador Car (Taxi) No. RSQ 4151, met with an accident with truck No. RJQ 5069 on Balotra- Barmer road on a turn near Nimbla Fanta. ANAND Singh died at the spot. Deceased ANAND Singh was accompanied by one more passenger in the car, who was thrown out of the car on account of this accident. The truck No. R. IQ 5069 was driven by its owner Mana Ram rashly and negligently and it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Mana Ram that the accident took place. Smt. Dakudi, mother of deceased ANAND Singh and Kaushaliya sister of deceased ANAND Singh, filed a claim petition in the Court of the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Balotra, for the realization of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-on various counts. This claim petition was registered as Claim Petition No. 11 of 1976. Udai Singh-the owner of the taxi-car, also, filed a claim petition for the Award of Rs. 62,500/- (Rs. 23,500/- as cost of the Car, Rs. 22,000/-as loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony suffered on account of the death of his brother ANAND Singh and Rs. 7,000/- for the repayment of the loan ). This claim petition was registered as the Claim Petition No. 12 of 1976. Later on, both the claim petitions were transferred to the Court of the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, and were registered as Claim Petition No. 148 of 1978 and Claim Petition No. 149/1978, respectively. The owner of the truck as well as the insurance company, both, contested the claim petitions filed by the claimants. The case, as set-up by the owner of the truck in its reply was that Mana Ram, the owner and the driver of the truck was driving the truck on March 9, 1976, at 9. 00 a. m. on the Balotra-Barmer road, on a turn near Nimbla Fanta, with caution and at a lower speed. The car taxi was driven by ANAND Singh and one more passenger was sitting inside the car and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver ANAND Singh. He was driving the car with fast speed and there was a slope while the truck was proceeding on a height and therefore the speed of the truck was much lower while the car was on the slope and was proceeding with a higher speed, and it was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by ANAND Singh that the accident took place. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed separately in both the cases, but on the request of the parties, the trial Court, by its order dated July 31, 1978, consolidated both the cases as they related to the same accident, and recorded the statements in Claim Petition No. 148 of 1978. The claimants, in support of their case, examined seven witnesses, namely, PW 1 Dakudi the mother of deceased driver ANAND Singh, PW 2 Udai Singh the brother of the deceased ANAND Singh P. W. 3 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased ANAND Singh, P. W. 4 Dr. Khushal Singh Gehlot brother of the deceased ANAND Singh, PW5 Narain Doonathani, the alleged eye witness of the accident, PW 6 iadan Singh, M. T. O. and PW 7 Khinv Singh, Head Constable, Police Station, Sindri, who registered the criminal case, prepared the site plan, examined the witnesses and presented the challan. The non-petitioners examined OPW 1 Mana Ram, OPW 2 Rana Ram, OPW3 Padam Chand Manager, Union Bank, Jodhpur and OPW4 M. L. Mehta, the Inspector, National Insurance Company, Jodhpur. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, by its Award/judgment dated August 31, 1992, partly decreed the claims of the claimants. The learned Judge of the Tribunal held, both the drivers of the truck as well as the driver of the Car negligent in driving their vehicles and also came to the conclusion that both the vehicles were driven rashly and negligently and it was on account of the contributory negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles that the accident too place. The ratio of the contributory negligence was fixed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal at 50% - 50%. The learned Trial Court, also, came to the conclusion that the applicants Smt. Dakudi and Kaushaliya Devi are the two dependents of the deceased ANAND Singh and they are entitled to receive the compensation. The learned Judge of the Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants of Rs. 200/- per month and applied the multiplier of 20 and determined the dependency of Rs. 48,000/-, which was reduced by him to 50% as ANAND Singh himself contributed to the accident. In the claim petition filed by Smt. Dakudi and Kaushaliya, the learned Judge of the Tribunal thus, awarded Rs. 24,000/-as compensation. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, in the claim petition No. 12 of 1976 (149/1978), filed by Udai Singh, determined the loss incurred by the claimant Udai Singh on account of the damages to the car, to the tune of Rs. 23,000/-, but a Rs. 16, 667. 16 p. were already paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant in satisfaction of his claim, the trial Court, therefore, awarded as sum of Rs. 6,333/- as the balance amount, but the claim petition of the claimant Udai Singh on other counts was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the Award/judgment dated August 31, 1982, awarding the compensation only upto the tune of Rs. 24,000/- and dismissing the remaining claim, Smt. Dakudi and Kaushaliya filed an appeal for the enhancement of the claim amount and for the decree of the remaining amount. That appeal is registered as S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26 of 1983 (Smt. Dakudi and Another vs. Mana Ram and Others); Mana Ram the owner and driver of the truck, also, filed an appeal challenging the Award of the compensation amounting to Rs. 24,000/-in Claim Petition No. 11/1976 (148/78), which was registered as S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 168 of 1982 (Mana Ram vs. Smt. Dakudi and Another ). Udai Singh, aggrieved with the insufficiency of the amount awarded by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 12/76 (149/1978) preferred an appeal which was registered as, S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 78 of 1983 (Udai Singh and others vs. Mana Ram), and Mana Ram, the owner and driver of the truck, aggrieved of the award granting damages to the tune of Rs. 6,333/- as the price of the car, preferred an appeal, which was registered as S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 267 of 1982 (Mana Ram vs. Udai Singh and Others ).

(3.) THE next question, which requires consideration in the present case is whether the mother or the sister can be said to be the dependents of the deceased Anand Singh? So far as Smt. Dakudi is concerned, she is the mother of deceased Anand Singh and was dependent upon him. Though two other sons of Smt. Dakudi are still alive, and they are expected to maintain her, but in the zeal to punish the driver of the truck and to meet out the expenses of maintenance by way of receiving compensation in this case, they have stated before the Court, which does not appear to be reasonable, that they are not maintaining their mother. It is their duty to maintain their mother, but anyhow, the mother being the claimant, is entitled to receive the amount of compensation. So far as Kaushaliya is concerned, she is a married woman and she cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased Anand Singh and, therefore, she is not entitled to receive any compensation. THE learned lower Court was, also, justified in applying the multiplier of 20 in the present case. THE age of Smt. Dakudi is 50 years and, the average age, as given in the claim petition by the claimants, is only 65 years, and, therefore, even if the age expectancy is taken to be 70 years then the multiplier of 20 was rightly applied. Moreover, the deceased was not married and as the other two brothers are not keeping their mother, the deceased Anand Singh might not have kept his mother, also, but anyhow, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 20 was rightly applied by the learned trial Court.