JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This order will dispose of F.A.O. No. 1210 of 1991 and 1353 of 1992 as both the appeals have arisen from an award dated 17.8.1991 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- was awarded to the claimants as compensation to be paid by the Driver and owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., Jeep No. HNN 285 F.A.O. 1210 of 1991 has been filed by the driver and the owner of the Jeep No. HNN 285 on whom the liability to pay compensation has been fixed whereas FAO 1353 of 1991 has been filed by claimants for enhancement of the compensation.
2. The challenge to the award is that liability of the driver and the owner has been wrongly fixed as the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. Another plea is that the monthly dependency and earning capacity of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The background which led to the filling of these appeals is that a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by Santosh Rani (who is respondent in FAO 1210 of 1991) for herself and on behalf of her minor children and the parents of the deceased namely Narain Das and Parmeshwari Bai, seeking compensation of Rs. 5 lacs on account of death of Bhim Sen. The accident in which Bhim Sain, husband of Santosh Rani died had taken place on 3.3.1989 in the area of Hissar.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details the relevant facts are that on 3.3.1989 Bhim Sain (since deceased) was going on his motor-cycle No. HYH/74 from Hissar city side to Dhani Sham Lal. Ramesh Kumar was following Bhim Sain on his scooter while Subhash Chander was sitting on the pillion of the scooter of Ramesh Kumar. When Bhim Sain reached the weighing Machine of Tek Chand a jeep bearing registration No. HNN 285 driven by Pal Ram, appellant No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against the motor-cycle of Bhim Sain. With the result Bhim Sain fell down from the motor-cycle and was dragged by the Jeep to some distance. In the process, Bhim Sain received grievous injuries on his person. The Driver in order to save his skin stopped the Jeep in the katcha portion of the road on its left side and ran away. The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Hissar by Ramesh Kumar and Subhash Chander from where he was referred to Rohtak Medical College, Rohtak where he succumbed to his injuries on 6.3.1989.
4. The claimants had asserted in the claim petition that the deceased was an expert electrician and was specialist in electric motor winding. He used to contribute Rs. 1500/- per month to his family for house-hold expenses. According to the claimants, they had spent Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment, medicines, nursing, hospitalisation and transport etc. The claimants had also spent Rs. 5.000/- on the performance of the last rites of the deceased. Besides the pecuniary loss, the claimants have suffered mental agony and damages.
5. The respondents (now appellants) had taken a plea that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the Jeep which was being driven on its left side of the road at a low speed, and when the jeep crossed Shiv Dharam Kanta, Pala Ram, Driver of the Jeep, saw the motor-cycle coming from Hissar side in the middle of the road and a cow was running in a zig-zag manner ahead of him in the middle of the road. On seeing this, the Driver of the Jeep stopped the jeep on its left side on the katcha portion. The motor-cyclist, could not control the motor-cycle and struck the same against the legs of the cow and received injuries. Jagdish and Jhamal who were going towards Raipur came to rescue the motor cyclist and put the motor cyclist in the back portion of the jeep and requested the driver of the jeep to remove the injured to the Hospital, but on the advice of some persons, who, in the meanwhile had collected at the place of occurrence, went to the Police Station to inform about the manner of accident.
On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:
1. Whether the death of the deceased has been caused because of the rash and negligent driving at the hands of respondent No. 1 driver. If so to what effect ?
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and against whom
3. Relief.
6. The claimants in support of their claim, had examined Dr. V.K. Govila, PW-2, Sewa Ram, Photographer, PW-3, Dr. Surender Singh, PW-4, Santosh Rani, respondent No. 1.
7. The learned Tribunal after perusing the evidence returned a finding against the respondents, now appellants, and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- as compensation to the claimants now respondents.
8. I have gone through the entire evidence and find no reason to interfere in the well reasoned award of the Tribunal, who had rightly held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its Driver. As such, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are affirmed. So far as the dependency of the deceased is concerned, I am of the view that there is no error on the part of the learned Tribunal in assessing the dependency of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a skilled mechanic. He must have been earning Rs. 1500/- per month. After meeting personal expenditure, he must be contributing Rs. 1000/- for his family which will be 2/3rd of his monthly income. As such the Tribunal had rightly assessed the dependency of the deceased.
Consequently both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.