ROOP NARAIN Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a D.B. Special Appeal under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment dated 24.9.1984 passed by the learned single Judge of this High Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 1982 which was filed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 17.9.1981 in M.A.C. No. 149 of 1979.

(2.) IT will not be necessary for the decision of this appeal to narrate all the facts of the accident, on account of which the claim petition arose. Suffice it to say, deceased Mahesh Chand aged 24 years lost his life on account of unfortunate accident, which occurred on 26.3.1979 due to negligence of Respondent No. 1, the driver of truck No. RSG 9737 A claim of Rs. 1,20,000/ - was, therefore, filed by the Appellants. The Claims Tribunal framed first issue regarding rash and negligent driving and second and third issues regarding quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants. After trial of the case, the learned Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of negligent driving of Respondent No. 1 and passed an award on 17.9.1981 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in case the amount is not paid within a period of 3 months, i.e. up till 17.12.1981. The Appellants were dissatisfied with the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3 regarding the quantum of compensation awarded to them. An appeal was therefore, filed against the award in this Court. This appeal was heard and decided by the single Bench of this Court on 24.9.1984. The appeal was partly accepted and award of Rs. 20,000/ - was raised to Rs. 30,000/ - by which multiplier of 12 years was raised to 20 years. An amount of Rs. 125/ - was expected to have been spent by the deceased on looking after his parents the Appellants. An amount of Rs. 500/ - was also awarded as costs. The findings of the Tribunal regarding interest were also confirmed. The Appellants dissatisfied with this judgment have preferred this special appeal.

(3.) WE have heard the rival contentions of learned Counsel for both the parties and also perused the record of the case.