JHOOMER LAL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER RSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 30.12.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short, 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) in MAC Cases Nos. 48, 63, 74 and 114 of 1986. whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 75,000/ -, Rs. 53,000/ - Rs. 33,000/ - and Rs. 20,000/ - respectively in favour of the claimants. However, being dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant -appellants (for short, 'the claimants' hereinafter) have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals, are that on 31.12.1985 at about 3 P.M., deceased Rajkumar and Smt. Basanti as well as injured appellants Munnalal and Pawan Kumar were travelling in the vehicle Tempo Trax bearing No. TMG 1860 from Pipar City to Jodhpur. The said Tempo Trax was being driven by Mohan Singh. When it reached near Dantiwada, a bus bearing No. RNP 796 coming from the opposite direction which was driven by respondent No. 3 Gani Mohammed rashly, negligently and with great speed, suddenly went out of control and hit the Tempo Trax. The said bus was owned by the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation' hereinafter). Due to this accident, the driver of the Tempo Trax Mohan Singh, occupants Rajkumar aged 19 years, Smt. Basanti aged 55 years, Munna Lal and Pawan Kumar sustained serious injuries, Mohan Singh, Rajkumar and Smt. Basanti succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. The legal representatives of deceased Mohan Singh, Rajkumar and Smt. Basanti besides injured Munnalal and Pawan Kumar field claim applications before the Tribunal for compensation. On appreciation of the evidence produced before the Tribunal, it held that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver respondent No. 3 Gani Mohammed. The finding of the Tribunal as to the negligence of the driver of the bus has not been challenged and has, thus, become final. The only point for consideration in these appeals is as to inadequacy of the amounts of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) AT the time of the accident, of course, the deceased was a non -earning member being a student. But, on completion of his education, looking to his academic progress, he would obviously have been engaged as an Engineer with future prospects. Therefore, the deceased was a prospective earning member of the family. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/ - as compensation to the claimants. It is settled law that in appeal the quantum of compensation is interfered with if the compensation awarded is too low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, for a young person of 19 years of age, taking into account his educational career and bright future prospects, a sum of Rs. 75,000/ - awarded by the Tribunal is too low. In L.Rs. of Haji Zainullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad : (1994)5SCC667 while awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ - for the death of 20 years old student of 1st Year B.Sc., the Apex Court observed that the compensation asked for by the claimants is very much on the lower side. The Second Schedule to Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides notional income of Rs. 15,000/ - per annum in the case of non -earning victims of road accidents. Even if this amount is taken to be the basis for compensation and then an appropriate multiplier is applied, considering the fact that the deceased was a brilliant student having future prospects, in my considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - would be just and proper compensation.