ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. BHAGWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is aggrieved by the award dated 26.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, No.14, Jaipur Mahanagar (Raj.), whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 15,25,544/ - to the claimants/respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 30.08.2009, at about 6:00 pm, Laxman Ram (husband of respondent no.1) was going on his Motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ -14 -HS -7957 from his workplace (Clay Craft India Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 766 -A, Road No.1, V.K.I. Area Jaipur, Sangam Colony. When he reached Road No. 14, near the lane going towards Hanuman Vatika, a D.I. Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ -14 -T -6911 hit the motorcycle of Laxman Ram from the wrong side. Consequently, Laxman Ram expired. With the loss of the bread earner, the claimants filed a claim petition.

(3.) MR . Kinshuk Jain, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of Laxman Ram. Exhibit.21, the Register for labourers for the month of August, 2009 clearly showed that his income was Rs. 6,500/ -. However, a white fluid had been applied on the said figure and it was subsequently changed to Rs. 10,660/ -. Instead of taking Laxman Ram's income as Rs. 6,500/ -, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs. 7,815/ - per month. Secondly, the claimants have not produced any payment voucher, which was required by law to be given by the factory where Laxman Ram was working, as a Turner in the Clay Factory. In the absence of the payment voucher, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wage payable to a semi -skilled worker. But the Tribunal has failed to do so. Thirdly, the site plan (Ex.P4) does not indicate in which direction Laxman Ram was riding, and in which direction the offending Jeep was being driven. Therefore, there is nothing to prove the fact that the Jeep driver was driving the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner. Lastly, that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied a multiplier of 16. Thus, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with.