MOOL CHAND Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil misc. appeals under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short the Act) are directed against the common award dated 11.10.1995 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to in short the Tribunal), Therefore, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that on 13.5.1993 deceased Rakesh Kumar and injured Madan Singh were coming on a bicycle from Harmada to Jaipur City. A bus No. RJ 14-P 0740 which was owned by Krishna Motor Service and was being driven by Balbir Singh came from behind and dashed against their bicycle by driving it rashly and negligently, as a result of which they sustained injuries. Rakesh succumbed to the injuries and Madan Singh sustained serious multiple injuries. A criminal case was got registered and two claim petitions were filed. One claim petition being M.A.C. No. 284 of 1993 was filed by the parents, brother and sister of deceased Rakesh Kumar claiming a compensation of Rs. 19,31,500 and another claim petition was filed by Madan Singh, the injured, being M.A.C. No. 312 of 1993 claiming Rs. 4,95,000 as compensation against the driver, owner and insurance company. The driver did not file any reply to the claim petition. The owner pleaded that the driver was driving the bus properly and accident had occurred on account of negligence and violation of traffic rules by the deceased and the injured. It was also pleaded that the bus in question was insured with the insurance company. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed as against him. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, also denied its liability and pleaded that the accident had occurred on account of the mistake and negligence of the cyclist and unless it was proved that the driver was having a valid licence at the time of alleged accident, the company was not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. As both the claim cases arose from the same accident, they were consolidated and after taking evidence of the parties and affording an opportunity of hearing, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 11.10.1995. The claimants in M.A.C. No. 284 of 1993 were awarded a compensation of Rs. 80,000 for the death of Rakesh Kumar in the accident and the claimant in M.A.C. No. 312 of 1993 was awarded a sum of Rs. 57,300 as compensation for his injuries. Aggrieved by the said award these two appeals have been filed for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

(3.) In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 509 of 1996, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below is too inadequate which should be enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 as has been held in case of Laxman v. Nahar Singh, 2002 ACJ 1734 (Rajasthan); Haji Zainullah Khan v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 ACJ 993 (SC); Shyam Lai v. Rajen- dra Kumar, 2001 ACJ 215 (Rajasthan); Hanuman Sant v. Madan Lal, 1998 ACJ 918 (Rajasthan) and Deep Singh v. Navratan, 2002 ACJ 205 (Rajasthan). Learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal below.