STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHOOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cross appeals filed under S. 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 arise out of an Award dated 21. 4. 1988 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 8/1982; whereby an Award amounting to Rs. 60,000/- has been passed against the appellants and proforma respondent No. 5 in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 147/88. Appeal No. 147/88 has been filed by State of Rajasthan and Deputy Director Agriculture (Extension) Tonk, against the claimants and the driver for setting aside the Award dated 21. 4. 1988 and Appeal No. 105/88 has been preferred by driver Bashir Khan against the claimants and the appellants in Appeal No. 147/88, for setting aside the above Award. Both these appeals are disposed of by this single judgment, since they arise out of the same Award as indicated above.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to these appeals are that a motor accident took place on 3. 1. 82 at about 6. 15 p. m. involving Jeep No. RJX 1894 which was being driven by Bashir Khan Driver, appellant in appeal No. 105/88, who was at the relevant time in the employment of Director Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. In the said accident one person Isar son of Mangilal victim of the accident, lost his life. The dependants of the deceased Isar, namely, Mst. Bhooli widow of Mangilal (mother of the deceased), Mst Prahaladi widow of the deceased, Ramlal and Sohan both minor sons of the deceased under the guardianship of their mother Mst. Prahaladi, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs. 1,92,600/- against the State and the driver of the Jeep Bashir Khan. The learned Tribunal after examining ocular as well as the documentary evidence led before it, passed an award on 21. 4. 1988 whereby a sum of Rs. 60,000/-was awarded in favour of the claimants and against the State and the driver of the Jeep. Aggrieved by the said Award both the above appeals have been filed in this court as indicated above.

(3.) ON the above questions arising out of issue No. 2, learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was 30 years of age and would have lived for another 35 years i. e. , 65 years had he not met with untimely death. The mother of deceased was 55 years of age and would have lived for another 10 years. ON the question of monthly income of the deceased the deposition of the father of the deceased Mangilal PW. l is to the effect that the deceased was having annual income of approximately Rs. 12,000/- and was also doing the labourer's job in the fields and was having no other occupation. To the same effect is the deposition of PW. 2 Prahaladi, mother of the deceased. In the absence of any direct evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the daily earnings of unskilled labourer would be minimum Rs. 14/- and if calculated on that basis monthly income would come to Rs. 400/- approximately. The learned Tribunal has further recorded a finding that out of Rs. 400/- the deceased must be spending atleast Rs. 200/- p. m. on his family members while the remaining amount on himself. With regard to the age of the wife of the deceased, learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that Mst. Prahaladi, wife of the deceased was 25 years of age as on the date of death of her husband and had been consequently put to a loss of Rs. 200/- p. m. on account of untimely death of her husband and on the principle of multiplier of age it comes to 25x2400 amounting to Rs. 60,000/-as held by the learned Tribunal. I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal has gone wrong in applying the multiplier of 25x2400 because span of life of the deceased should have been taken as 65 years by calculating age of the deceased the multiplier of 35 should have been applied, since the deceased was 30 years of age on the date of his death and would have lived for another 35 years, i. e. , 65 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 200x12x35 should have been applied by learned Tribunal which comes to Rs. 84,000/ -. I am further of the opinion that the claim petition is exaggerated to the extent of Rs. 1,92,600/-, since there is no positive evidence on the record with regard to monthly income of the deceased and the oral evidence of the witnesses does not help the claimants to an increased amount as demanded by them in their claim petition before learned Tribunal.