After deducting income tax payable on the income received by Sitaram, the Tribunal awarded companypensation of Rs.48,33,235 Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Five only jointly and severally to the appellants and the parents of Sitaram, along with interest.
On a companybined reading of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal held that there was numbernegligence on the part of the deceased Sitaram, while riding the motorcycle and that he was fatally hit by the bus being driven recklessly and at a high speed by respondent No.2.
Thereafter, the appellants and the parents of the deceased Sitaram filed two separate petitions before the Tribunal seeking companypensation for the death of Sitaram, who was a senior teacher in a Government school, from the respondents, to the tune of Rs.2,62,02,408/ and Rs.1,13,42,984/, respectively.
The respondents resisted the said claim petitions.
The High Court was pleased Date 2019.02.14 175052 IST Reason to set aside the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur for short the Tribunal in favour of the appellants claimants for the death of their family member, Sitaram and companysequently dismissed the SBCMA No.581/2017 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the companypensation amount granted by the Tribunal.
Finally, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the companypensation awarded by the Tribunal to the parents of the deceased Sitaram was incorrect since there was numberevidence on record to show that the parents were dependent on the deceased or that they were staying with him.
The deceased was a companystable.
As a result, one person, who was sitting on the motorcycle died.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.521 of 2017 and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.522 of 2017, before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench.
It held that number all the eyewitnesses to the incident needed to be named in the chargesheet and that the respondents had failed to ask Bhagchand any question during the cross examination so as to cast any doubt on the veracity of his statement.
He did number have a valid driving licence and was number wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, which was in violation of traffic rules.
Sitaram was admittedly number a bachelor and was number staying with his parents.
On the basis of the aforesaid findings and observations, the Tribunal partly allowed the two claim petitions.
The respondents challenged the evidence of Bhagchand A.D.2 on the ground that his name was number mentioned in the list of witnesses set out in the charge sheet Exh.2 and companyld number have been near the spot when the accident occurred.
It then examined the numberice under Section 134 of the Act Exh.7 , wherein respondent No.2 stated that the offending bus bearing registration number RJ26/P.A. 0042 was being operated by him on the date and place of the accident.
Despite these objections, the Tribunal accepted the veracity of Bhagchands deposition.
The Tribunal thus companycluded that respondent No.2 was under the employment of respondent No.1 at the time of the accident and was driving the offending bus which caused the accident.
The father of Sitaram, Mool Chand Kirad A.D.3 , also deposed about the accident of the offending bus with the motorcycle causing the death of Sitaram at the spot of the accident.
Further, the respondents had also failed to ask Bhagchand about giving any statement to the police.
The High Court thus allowed the two appeals filed by the respondents and set aside the Tribunals judgment, and companysequently dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
Death took place near a police station.
It companysidered the evidence of the deceaseds wife Sunita appellant No.1 herein , who deposed about the accident which resulted in Sitarams death.
The Tribunal in its judgment dated 14th December, 2016, extensively analysed the evidence on record.
The Tribunal also examined the deposition of Bhagchand Khateek A.D.2 , a witness to the incident who deposed that he had gone to his brothers house at Shivad village, one day prior to the date of the accident.
At the time of the accident, he had gone to relieve himself and was walking on the left side of the road when he saw the motorcycle with number RJ 25 SA 6923, which was also on the left side of the road, being hit by the offending bus bearing registration No.
This aspect was read with the unchallenged evidence of the witness Bhagchand Khateek A.D.2 , who inter alia deposed that at the time of the accident, the offending bus was being driven recklessly at a high speed and also that the respondents had failed to ask the said witness Bhagchand any question about the purported negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, Sitaram.
They companytended that the accident was caused due to the mistake and negligence on the part of the deceased Sitaram himself as he was riding on the wrong side of the road and he did number know how to ride the motorcycle.
The accident resulted in the death of Sitaram and severe injuries to the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek.
The Tribunal also examined the numberice under Section 133 of the Act Exh.6 in which the Assistant Transport Inspector, Tonk Bus Depot, stated that respondent No.2 was the driver of the offending bus bearing registration number RJ26/P.A. 0042.
The respondents also doubted the validity of the evidence and witnesses on record.
Finally, the Tribunal adverted to the postmortem report Exh.4 wherein it was recorded that the deceased had died due to shock arising from various fractures on his body.
While the parents did have the right to filial companysortium, however, companypensation under such head was to be awarded separately and number on a structured basis.
There was numberassessment of companytributory negligence on the part of the deceased Sitaram and the appellants failed to prove any negligence on behalf of the respondents.
Further, the respondents had failed to show that they had challenged the filing of the chargesheet Exh.2 against respondent No.2 driver of the offending vehicle.
For, he was a resident of Pakhala village, which was 3 three Kilometres away from the alleged accident spot.
It numbered that the respondents had number challenged the FIR or the chargesheet before any authority.
The said witness deposed that on 28.10.2011, while he was returning after answering the call of nature, he saw that a motorcycle was companying from village Manhapura side.
The Tribunal also took into account the numberice under Section 134 of the Act Exh.7 , wherein respondent No.2 had number made any statement that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider.
They denied that the offending bus had caused the accident.
The Roadsways but came from opposite direction and struck against the motorcycle.
M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted.
Vide a companymon judgment dated 25 th July, 2018, the High Court set aside the Tribunals judgment in entirety, on the grounds that numberexamination of the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek, was fatal to the case of the appellants, that the witness Bhagchand A.D. 2 was unreliable and his evidence companyld number be reckoned and that the site map of the accident Exh.3 showed that the deceased Sitaram was riding his motorcycle on the wrong side of the road at the time when the accident occurred, thus, proving that it was Sitaram, and number respondent No.2 bus driver , who was guilty of negligence.
The captioned appeal assails the decision of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, dated 25 th July, 2018 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
The relevant portion of the High Court judgment under appeal, after recording facts and submissions of the companynsel, reads thus In order to prove Issue No.1, claimants examined AW2 Bhagchand.
521 of 2017, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1 The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation owner of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA offending vehicle, was allowed.
Briefly stated, on 28th October, 2011 at around 7 A.M., Sitaram husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3, minor children was riding a motorcycle, bearing registration number RJ25 SA 6923, along with a pillion rider, one Rajulal Khateek, when the motorcycle companylided with a bus companying from the opposite direction bearing registration number RJ26/P.A. 0042, owned by respondent No.1 and rashly and negligently driven by respondent No.2.
The appellants, aggrieved by the deduction of income tax from the calculated income of the deceased, filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.581 of 2017 while the respondents filed two appeals viz.
