PAN DEVI Vs. LALLU RAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals are directed against the common order and award dated 14.9.1988 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. They raise similar questions of fact and law, therefore, these are decided together by this common judgment.

(2.) CLAIM petitions were filed by the appellants -claimants on account of death of the deceased persons in a motor accident near Rampuria bus stand near Bagroo on Jaipur -Ajmer National Highway. The deceased was husband of the appellant -claimant No. 1 and son of the appellant -claimant No. 2 in each case. According to the claim petition on 2.11.1984 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased were going in truck No. RRM 2111 from Jaipur to Ajmer as servants of the contractor. The truck was being driven very rashly and negligently with high speed by its driver. When the truck reached near Rampuria bus stand, another truck No. RSB 525 came from the opposite direction. Both the drivers of the trucks were driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently and as a result of which there was a head -on collision between both the trucks. Due to this, the deceased persons of all the said four appeals died. The appellants -claimants of the four appeals had filed separate claim petitions before the learned Tribunal which passed the award. The appellants -claimants have preferred these appeals for the enhancement of the award.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has assessed Rs. 600/ - as the monthly income of the deceased. It has further determined multiplier of 20.1 am broadly in agreement with this finding of the learned Tribunal and approve the reasons given by the Tribunal for arriving at the above conclusions. I need not enter upon the reappraisal of the evidence and reiterate the reasons to support the conclusion and finding of the learned Tribunal that the monthly income of deceased was Rs. 600/ - p.m. and the multiplier in these cases is 20 because in the case of Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary AIR 1967 SC 1124, the Supreme Court has laid down that where the appellate court agrees with the views and conclusion of the trial court, the former need not enter upon reappraisal of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court and the expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would suffice. I broadly agree with the learned Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 600/ - p.m. and the multiplier in the matter should be 20.