Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Mongi And Ors

The matter comes up on an application filed by the claimant- respondent for early disposal of the appeal.

Learned counsel for the claimants-respondent submits that in pursuance of the judgment and award dated 05.10.2006 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in MAC Case No.353/2004, the amount has been deposited in the fixed deposit account but the same is not

disbursed to Smt. Mongi(respondent/claimant No.1). She is 79 years of age and suffering from multiple ailments, therefore, she needs money for her

treatment.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard and decided finally at the order stage.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - RSRTC against the judgment and award dated 05.10.2006 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in MAC Case No.353/2004, whereby, an amount of Rs.2,82,000/- was awarded to the respondents-claimants on

account of the death of Hanja in the accident which occurred on 10.02.2004.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, partly allowed

the claim petition with a direction to the appellant-R.S.R.T.C. to compensate the respondents-claimants by paying a compensation to the tune of

Rs.2,82,000/-.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the facts brought on record and has not evaluated

the evidence in correct perspective and, therefore, has erred while passing the award against the appellant in the present case. He further submits that

the deceased-Hanja was unemployed youth and nothing was brought on record with respect to the income of the deceased-Hanja. Therefore, the

learned Tribunal has wrongly decided the Issue No.3 against the present appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the First Information Report itself, it has been mentioned that the deceased-Hanja was

suffering from mental disorder, therefore, there was no question of the deceased-Hanja having any monthly income whatsoever. However, the

learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the evidence with respect to the deceased-Hanja was suffering from mental illness was not

brought before the learned Tribunal.

The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that brother- Bhoorji of the deceased was not entitled for any compensation in the

present case as he is a major person of 25 years of age.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that it was specifically brought before the learned Tribunal that the deceased-Hanja was earning

Rs.4,000/- per month from the agricultural work as well as masonary work in the village. He submits that no evidence in rebuttal was raised by the

learned counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal was right in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.2200/- per month.

Since 1/3 rd deduction was already done in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s DTC and

Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 12, therefore, even if, the brother was major person and not a dependent the same will not have any bearing in the

present case. He, therefore, submits that the judgment and award dated 05.10.2006 does not require any interference by this Court.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 05.10.2006 along with relevant record of the

case.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased-Hanja was suffering from mental disorder was not proved before the

Tribunal by placing the relevant evidence and therefore, the same is not required to be considered by the Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.3 has conclusively held that the deceased-Hanja was earning Rs.100/- per day on account of the

agricultural work as well as masonary work. In rebuttal, no evidence was brought by the appellant to dispute the fact of the income of the deceased-

Hanja. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the amount after deduction upon himself to the tune of 1/3rd is perfectly in order. The Tribunal has

rightly computed the award in the present case and the findings of Issue No.3, therefore, do not suffer from any infirmity.

As far as the brother of the deceased Bhoorji is concerned, who is major person of 25 years of age, it is needless to say that although he is not

dependent but the same have no bearing in the present case in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma(Supra),

the deductions are required to be done to the tune of 1/3 rd and the same was done in the present case. Therefore, the calculation for the payment of

compensation in the present case does not suffer from any infirmity.

In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The judgment and award dated 05.10.2006

passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur is upheld. It is directed to the learned Tribunal that the amount deposited in the

fixed deposit as per the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 05.10.2006 be transferred in the saving account of the deceased mother- Smt.

Mongi Devi (respondent/claimant No.1) with immediate effect.