w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Dhanna Lal & Others v/s Surajmal & Others

    Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 2788 of 2006, 600 of 2006

    Decided On, 05 August 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan


    For the Appearing Parties: Jitendra Pandey, Sanjay Singhal Sudmal, Gopal Bai, Anant Bhandari, Advocates.

Judgment Text

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1. The Appeal No. 2788 of 2006 has been filed by Dhannalal, Gopal, Birdha, Deva Lal and Inderraj, being owner of the tractor and trolley against the award dated 23.11.2005 (sic) MACT Baran, awarding compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,61,000/- to the claimants.

2. Whereas Appeal No. 600 of 2006 has been filed by the clai

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mants for enhancing the claim amount awarded by the MALT in the award dated 23.11.1995.

3. Since both these appeals are late to award dated 23.11.1995, both of them are decided by this common order.

4. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

5. Brief facts of the case are that on account rash and negligent driving of the tractor, one Chandra Prakash who was travelling in the trolley fell from the tractor and died. The claimants filed claim against the insurance Company and the owner of the tractor. The MACT after recording evidence of the parties in the first instance decided issue No. 1 against the claimants. The claimants filed appeal before this Court and this court remanded the matter vide order dated 29.7.1993 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 703/1993. Thereafter the MACT decided the issues 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- to claimants and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount to the claimants and further the insurance Company was directed to recover the compensation from the owner of the tractor as the they have violated the conditions of the policy.

6. Mr. Jitendra Fandey, learned counsel appearing for the tractor owner has argued that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased himself hence the impugned award is liable to be quashed. There was no evidence on record to show the income of the deceased and thus the award passed by the MACT is very excessive in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/

7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The MACT after considering the evidence of the claimants, it was held that it was negligence of the driver of the tractor on account of which Chandra Prakash died. The MACT discarded the evidence of the tractor owner that Chandra Prakash while sitting in the tractor in a drunken state. The other evidence produced by the tractor owner was that he was dancing in the tractor. The MACT discarded the evidence of the tractor owner. I have gone through the finding arrived at by the MACT and I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT that the accident took pl4ce on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor.

8. The MACT estimated the income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/- per year and dependency was determined Rs. 8,000/- per year. The multiplier of 17 was applied. In this matter Rs. 1,36,000/- were determined as compensation. For love and affection and cremation one time amount of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded. In this manner a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- was awarded to the claimants. This compensation cannot be said to be excessive. The findings arrived at by the MACT is just and proper and the same stand confirmed. The appeal filed by the tractor owner deserves to be rejected. The claimants are also not entitled to enhancement of compensation.

9. For the reason mentioned above, the appeals filed by the owner of the tractor and the claimants deserve to be rejected and hence rejected. The award of the MACT stand confirmed. The interim stay granted on 23.8.2006 stands vacated. The stay application also stands rejected. The MACT is directed to disburse the award money to the claimants as per the award.

Appeals dismissed.