RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. MANORMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a misc. appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act arising out of a claim for compensation made before the Moto. Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur.

(2.) A sum of Rs. 17 05,000/ - was claimed as compensation for a fatal accident before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,17,600/ - as compensation to the claimants and rejected the claim for the remaining amount. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the RSRTC) against which the award had been made preferred an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the claimants filed cross -objection The learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the RSRTC and reduced the amount of compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 3,20,000/ - only and the cross -objection of the claimants was dismissed. The learned Single Judge awarded interest on the amount of compensation only at 6% p a. and time too from the date of award until payment. The RSRTC felt aggrieved even after this reduction in the amount of compensation made by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it preferred the present appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. The claimants have filed a cross objection for restoration of the Tribunal's award. The result is that the RSRTC in its appeal claims further reduction in the amount of compensation while the claimants in their cross -objection pray for restoration of the Tribunal's award granting Rs. 6,17,600/ - as compensation in addition to the interest payable thereon.

(3.) THE deceased Prakash Chandra was aged about 32 years when he was killed in the motor accident survived by his widow Smt. Manorma, then aged about 24 years, and a I minor daughter then aged about 7 years. The deceased came from an apparently affluent family, his father having retired as Additional Commissioner from Government service in Rajasthan. The deceased was engaged in agency business which he was carrying on as the working partner of a partnership firm in which his father was the other partner. The father of the deceased Maganlal, AW 4, was aged 74 years at that time. He has proved that deceased was doing the entire work of the firm in which they two were the only partners with equal shares and the agency work was of well known concerns namely. Sriram Fertilizers, Sriram ChemiCals, Kirloskar, Dunlop, Godrej, American Spring and Pressing Works and N.B.C. etc. He further stated that after the death of his son Prakash Chandra he alone was left to look after the work which was apparently beyond his capacity at that age. We are informed that Miganlal, father of the deceased, has since then died. It is significant that there is no cross examination of this witness on any of the matters deposed by him and the only thing asked in cross -examination relates to ownership of the share of deceased Prakash Chandra which has gone to his widow Manorma. It may be added that Maganlal has given particulars of his family to show that there is considerable longevity in his family. His eldest daughter was then aged 57 years and he had a younger brother aged 63 years also living.