Full Judgment
Prakash Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Government Advocate. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accident occurred on 10.7.1979 causing death of one Bhanwari Lal, who was of the age of 13 years only. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the respondent No. 1 Chandgi Ram was driving the vehicle Motor Grader without the permission of the respondent State and its officers. The Tribunal held that respondent No. 1 is personally liable for the compensation, The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6 to 7 per day and held that the deceased would have given Rs. 3 per day to his mother. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded total compensation of Rs. 16,200.
3. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed illegality in exonerating the State from the liability. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, in fact, the respondent No. 1 was permitted to drive the vehicle and he caused the accident while he was in service of the respondent State. Therefore, the respondent State is vicariously liable. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submits that compensation awarded is too low.
4. I considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It cannot be dis- puted that Bhanwari Lai, boy of 13 years died in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the Motor Grader by respondent No. 1. I perused the evidence produced by the claimant and also perused the copy of the F.I.R. placed on record as Exh. Al. It appears from the totality of the facts of the case that Chandgi Ram, respondent No. 1, took away the vehicle unauthorisedly in the night at about 1-1.30 p.m. By the noise of the vehicle, some persons woke up and found that driver was heavily drunk. He was caught hold by the persons and was handed over to the police. It is clear that the claimant was not present at spot. The respondents produced Alakh-ram, NAW 1, who was holding the charge of the chowkidar of the place where the vehicle in dispute was lying. He stated that Chandgi Ram came and demanded the key of the vehicle, but he refused to give. After about 50 to 60 minutes, he noticed sound of the vehicle and he ran towards the vehicle. Nemichand, NAW 2, stated on oath that Chandgi Ram unauthorisedly took away the vehicle. Both the witnesses stated that the vehicle was taken away in the midnight. In view of the above statements of both these persons and in view of the fact that Chandgi Ram was not the driver of the vehicle and nothing has come on record that there was any work in progress at the time of midnight, if Tribunal found that the accident was caused by Chandgi Ram by unauthorisedly driving the vehicle, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality.
5. So far as quantum is concerned in the year 2004, it may appear that the compensation awarded to the claimant is too meagre, but if examined in the light of the evidence produced by the claimant herself, it is clear that claimant admitted that the deceased was selling grass only and that too, with the help of two more brothers. The claimant claimed that by selling the grass, the deceased was earning Rs. 25 per day and was giving Rs. 20 per day to his mother. The Tribunal found that since it is admitted case that two brothers of the deceased were helping him and, therefore, even if, there was earning of Rs. 20 per day then the share of the deceased can be not more than Rs. 6 to 7 per day only out of which maximum 50 per cent, Rs. 3 deceased could have given to the claimant. The total loss of income to claimant was assessed Rs. 90 per month, i.e., Rs. 1,080 per year. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15. It will be relevant to mention here that the appellant and the deceased were the residents of small village Pitasar of Tehsil Naukha of District Bikaner and in the year 1979 by selling grass, a boy of age of 13 years cannot be believed to earn Rs. 600 per month as claimed by the claimant.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.