Corporation, Jhunjhunu Depot, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) v. All represented by Next Friend & Natural Guardian, Mother

: Mr. Yunus Khan for Mr. Intjar Ali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 04/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1988") [2025:RJ-JP:24659] (2 of 6) [CMA-4760/2016] assailing the award dated 18.05.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter to be referred to as "the learned Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim No. 924/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents has been allowed and an award of Rs. 8,70,000/- along with 7% interest per annum has been passed in favour of the claimants-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2013 at around 3:00 PM, the family members of the claimants-respondents, namely deceased Mohd. Aslam and Mohd. Farooq, were travelling on motorcycle RJ 18 SD 8839 towards their house from the Bissau Electricity Office, carrying CFLs. Upon reaching the Churu- Jhunjhunu main road near Ramswaroop Government Primary School, Bissau, a Rajasthan Roadways bus bearing registration RJ 10 PA 3424, allegedly driven by non-claimant No. 7 herein, at high speed and in a negligent manner from the Jhunjhunu side, collided with the motorcycle. The collision resulted in fatal head injuries to Mohd. Aslam, who succumbed during treatment, and injuries to Mohd. Farooq. First Information Report No. 75/13 was registered at Bissau Police Station, Jhunjhunu, concerning the incident, and subsequently, a chargesheet (Challan) was presented against the driver (non-claimant No. 7 herein) under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Consequently, the claimant/respondents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

3. The claimants-respondents' case was initiated through a claim petition filed on 07.10.2013, wherein it was contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving [2025:RJ-JP:24659] (3 of 6) [CMA-4760/2016] of the Rajasthan Roadways bus (RJ 10 PA 3424) by non-claimant No. 7 herein (Ramesh Singh). The claimants alleged that the bus was being driven at excessive speed and in a reckless manner, resulting in the fatal collision. They relied upon the FIR (No. 75/13) and the subsequent chargesheet filed under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to substantiate their allegations of negligence. The claimants sought compensation under various heads as specified in the petition, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the petition.

4. Non-claimant No. 7 herein (the bus driver) filed a written statement vehemently denying the allegations of negligence and speed. He contended that the claim petition was based on fabricated facts with an inflated compensation amount. He asserted that the accident occurred entirely due to the fault and negligence of the deceased motorcyclist, Mohd. Aslam, himself, absolving him (non-claimant No. 7 herein) of any liability. Alternatively, he pleaded that if any liability were found, the claim amount should be recovered from non-claimant/appellant No. 1 and non-claimant/appellant No. 2.

5. Non-claimant/appellants No. 1 & 2, in their joint written statement, similarly denied negligence on the part of non-claimant No. 7 herein and reiterated that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the deceased. They further contended that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the owner and insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident. [2025:RJ-JP:24659] (4 of 6) [CMA-4760/2016]

6. Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues for consideration. The claimants-respondents examined two witnesses: AW-1 Hasmat Bano and AW-2 Yakub Ali. The non- claimant/respondents examined one witness: NAW-1 Ramesh Singh (non-claimant No. 7 herein).

7. The claimants-respondents produced Exhibits 1 to 21 to prove their averments, whereas there was no documentary evidence led by the non-claimant/appellants.

8. The learned Tribunal, after due consideration of the facts, submissions of counsel, and the evidence adduced, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 8,70,000/- along with 7% interest per annum.

9. From the record of the case, it is revealed that deceased Mohd. Aslam lost his life in a road accident on 11.09.2013, which was caused by a bus belonging to the non-claimant/appellant- RSRTC.

10. The Tribunal's record further reflects that the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 5,000/-, with a one- fourth deduction for personal expenses, resulting in an annual loss of dependency of Rs. 45,000/-. The learned Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 in computing compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income at Rs. 5,000/- per month instead of Rs. 4,316/- (minimum wages) and in applying a multiplier of 15. He therefore prays that the appeal be allowed and the award modified. [2025:RJ-JP:24659] (5 of 6) [CMA-4760/2016]

12. During hearing, counsel non-claimant/respondents stated that the entire awarded amount has been disbursed to the claimants.

13. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that although the deceased earned 1,960 Dinar (equivalent to Rs. 15,000/- per month), the Tribunal conservatively assessed the income at Rs. 5,000/- per month. He supports the deduction of one-fourth for expenses, the annual dependency calculation of Rs. 45,000/-, and the multiplier of 15, citing Sarla Verma v. DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, and submits that the award warrants no interference.

14. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

15. Perusal of the impugned award reveals: (i) The deceased, aged 38 years, died in the accident; (ii) the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rs. 60,000/- annually) due to absence of documentary proof; (iii) After deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, the annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 45,000/-; (iv) Applying a multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was quantified at Rs. 6,75,000/- and under other various conventional heads awarded Rs.1,95,000/-(Rs.1,75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses) (v) Total compensation awarded was Rs. 8,70,000/-.

16. The impugned award aligns with the principles in Sarla Verma (supra) and cannot be termed to be excessive.

17. While taking into view the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the non- [2025:RJ-JP:24659] (6 of 6) [CMA-4760/2016] claimant/appellants; further, considering the fact that the appeal pertains to the year 2016 and the entire awarded amount has already been disbursed to the claimant/respondents long back, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award this Court does not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant.

18. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of any merits, and the same is hereby dismissed.

19. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /41 (MANEESH SHARMA),J