RSRTC Vs. RAGGO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE all the aforesaid four appeals have been filed against one judgment and award passed by MACT, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.1.2010 at about 3.15 PM, Munshi Ram, who used to treat animals (specifically buffalo) was going with Bhudeo, on his motor cycle no. RJ 05 SC 1254 for treating his buffalo. When they proceeded ahead after crossing Salabad Phatak, one roadways bus No. RJ 05 P 1100 coming from opposite side and being driven by its driver in high speed, rashly and negligently, head on collided with the motor cycle, as a result of which both Munshi Ram and Bhudeo expired on the spot. The age of Munshi Ram was stated to be 50 years at the time of accident and said to be earning Rs. 8000.00 per month by treating animals, milk business and agriculture, whereas age of Bhudev was stated to be 40 years at the time of accident and said to be earning Rs. 8000.00 per month from security service, milk business and agriculture. Thereafter, FIR No. 22/2010 was registered at Police Station Bayana for the offence U/s. 279 and 304 A IPC.

(2.) THEREAFTER successors of Munshi Ram and Bhudeo filed claim petitions before the Tribunal, whereupon notices were issued, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 3,34,000.00 in favour of claimants of deceased Munshi Ram and Rs. 4,74,000.00 in favour of claimants of deceased Bheduo and against the non claimants. Against the said judgment and award, RSRTC has filed the aforesaid two appeals challenging quantum of compensation, whereas the claimants have filed the other two appeals for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal appearing on behalf of the RSRTC has contended that the driver of the Motor Cycle namely Bhudeo was not driving the vehicle as per the provisions of M.V. Act. He did not wear the Helmet on his head. He has further contended that the negligence of the motor cycle driver, the income of the deceased and other aspects have not been rightly considered by the Tribunal, hence the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned award including the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal having dealt with each and every aspect of the matter ad-longum and the evidence emerging on record, rightly awarded the quantum of compensation. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is found not to have suffered from any legal flaw, rather it is found to be just and apposite, based on cogent finding, with which I fully concur.