GIRDHARI LAL Vs. MOHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/non -claimants, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, are aggrieved by the award dated 7.5.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3 and MACT, Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs.3,01,128/ - to the claimants -respondents alongwith an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants -respondents, filed a claim petition stating therein that on 15.1.2009 when Bodu Ram was going to his house, he was hit by a jeep being driven by the appellant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, Bodu Ram sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, on 25.1.2009 he died. By award dated 7.5.2013, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants -respondents, as stated above.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the learned Judge has ignored the fact that it is a case of contributory negligence. For, according to the appellants, Bodu Ram (deceased) met with the accident when he was trying to cross the road. Since he did not bother to see the approaching vehicle, he equally contributed to the alleged accident. Secondly, according to the Voters List (Ex.N.A.1), Bodu Ram's age was shown as 63 years at the time of the accident. Yet, the learned Judge has taken his age as 55 years. Therefore, he has misapplied the multiplier of eight, whereas the multiplier of five should have been applied. Hence, while assessing the loss of dependency, a wrong multiplier has been applied. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that although the appellants had claimed that Bodu Ram had met with an accident while he was trying to cross the road, they have failed to establish this fact. On the other hand, Prithviraj (A.W.2), an eyewitness of the accident, has clearly stated in his examination -in -chief that Bodu Ram was walking on the correct side of the road. When he reached the road which leads to his house, a Jeep which was driven rashly and negligently, came and hit Bodu Ram. The driver of the Jeep ran away. Thus, according to the eyewitness, Bodu Ram was not trying to cross the road. In fact, he was walking on the correct side of the road. His testimony is further corroborated by the site plan. According to the site plan, the road tends to bend near the area where the alleged accident had taken place. In the site plan, the place of accident is shown as "x ". An arrow also indicates the fact that the offending vehicle was coming behind Bodu Ram. The offending vehicle was trying to turn the curve which goes to right hand side. Instead of keeping the offending vehicle towards the middle of the road, according to the site plan, the vehicle came towards left side of the road and hit Bodu Ram. Therefore, both the oral and documentary evidence clearly reveal that Bodu Ram was not trying to cross the road. Moreover, it clearly proves that the vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Hence, conclusion of the learned Judge that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently cannot be faulted.