RAJIA Vs. NAGARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against the award dated February 18, 1987, in case No. 255 of 1984, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur.

(2.) IT will suffice to state for the purpose of this appeal that on June 23,1984, an accident took place on Jaipur Amber Road, while deceased Rafiq Ahmed was going on his scooter No. RRB 4091 towards Amber at about 6 p.m. in the evening, along with his son, aged two years and Sayed Ahmad, who was sitting on the pillion. The accident took place near the crossing of road, turning towards Ramgarh. It is alleged that the truck came from Ramgarh Road side coming at fast speed and struck with the scooter on the wrong side. As a result of the impact the deceased Rafiq and his child died on the spot. The truck driver ran away from the site of the accident. A claim petition was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after recording evidence of both the parties and hearing the learned Counsel awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 68,000/ - to the Appellants.

(3.) I have heard both the learned Counsel and also perused the award of the Tribunal and documents and statements of the witnesses. AW 1 Rajia, the widow of the deceased, has stated that the deceased gave her 40 to 45 rupees as his earning per day. AW 3, Sayed Ahmad, is an eye -witness who was on the pillion of the scooter at the time of unfortunate accident. He has stated that the scooter was coming at a speed of 10 to 15 km., a truck came at a high speed of 70 -80 km. from the side of Ramgarh Road and suddenly struck the scooter, which resulted in accident. The truck stopped at a distance of 20 -22' after causing the accident in which the deceased and infant child were killed on the spot. The deceased and his infant child were dragged to some distance by the truck. The truck came on the wrong side and struck the scooter. He has denied in his cross -examination that the back portion of the truck dragged the scooter. AW 4, Mahmood Yusuf, is witness with whom the deceased worked as 'nagina saj. He has stated that the deceased was a hardworking person and earning 40 to 50 rupees every day. He has also stated that looking to his hard work, he was capable of earning Rs. 100 -150/ - per day after some time. AW 5, Rood Mal, is head constable, who was on duty at the time of accident and was an eyewitness to the same. He has stated that the truck came from Ramgarh side and struck scooter in its back. He has also stated that the truck dragged the scooter to a distance of 20 -25'. He has also stated that the accident took place on account of fault of the truck driver. In cross -examination he has denied that the truck was coming at a slow speed on its own side. AW 7 is Babu Khan, with whom the deceased has worked from time to time, who has stated that the deceased earned Rs. 40 -50/ - per day. Thus from the evidence of the income of the deceased, it can be seen that the various witnesses have placed his income between Rs. 40 -50/ - per day. AW 1, the widow of the deceased, has stated that he gave her Rs. 40 -45/ - per day. The learned Counsel for the Appellants gives out that the Appellant maintained scooter also. It can, therefore, be seen that a person who maintains a scooter and has to support a family of ten persons, including his children, wife, sisters, brothers and mother cannot be expected to do so from an income of only Rs. 20/ - per day. I, therefore, take Rs. 1,000/ - to be monthly income of the deceased person. After deducting V3rd for his personal expenses the dependency amount comes to Rs. 670/ - per month. The deceased was 26 years old at the time of accident. He was doing his private work and in any case would have worked looking to his young age and attitude of hard work upto 60 years. It will, therefore, be appropriate to apply multiplier of 34 years to reach the figure of compensation to be awarded on account of loss of income to the claimants. In this way the Appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 670X12X34=2,73,360/ - under this head. Appellant No. 1 Rajia was young lady of 22 years age at the time of accident when all of a sudden she lost her husband and the complexion of her life completely changed. She was a young lady having bright future to live along with her husband but in this unfortunate accident, she has not only lost her husband but only son also which they had. In the facts and circumstances, I, therefore, award amount of Rs. 15,000/ -towards loss of consortium to the young widow, Appellant No. 1.