[2025:RJ-JP:2175] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4361/2016 Rajasthan State Road Transportation Corporation Jhalawar Depot through its Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transportation Corporation, Jhalawar ----Appellant Versus 1. Nandlal S/o Mannalal, aged about 56 years 2. Prembai w/o Nandlal, aged bout 53 years 3. Jagdish S/o Nandlal, aged about 29 years All R/o Mahavir Colony, Kachi Basti Khanpur, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur For Respondent(s) : None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment / Order 15/01/2025 1. Instant civil misc. appeal is preferred dissatisfied from award dated 05.04.2016 in MAC Case No.299/2015 passed by learned MACT, Jhalawar in a petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act. Learned Tribunal after considering evidence both oral and documentary has passed an award of ₹8,29,500/- with interest of 9%. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has challenged the award, which is against the settled principles of law. He further submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident and the Tribunal has drawn a conclusion of negligence against the driver of appellant only on basis of charge- sheet, which is inadmissible under the law. He further submitted [2025:RJ-JP:2175] (2 of 4) [CMA-4361/2016] that deceased was a 17 years old minor boy and he was a student, but the Tribunal on the basis of evidence has not only calculated lost of income but also future in favour of claimants. Atlast, he submitted that the award is contrary to settled principle of law, therefore, same is liable to be set aside. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. 4. A claim petition was filed on facts that on 08.07.2011, an information was received at P.S. Khanpur, District Jhalawar about felling of boy from bus of appellant. On basis of this report FIR No.247/2011 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was regitered at P.S. Khanpur and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against driver of appellant. The claimants have mentioned that deceased Jasraj @ Kalu was 17 years of age and he was earning ₹400/- per day as street vendor by selling peanut. The appellant and other respondents have denied the claim. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has adjudicated issue nos.1 and 2 in favour of claimants and after considering the material on record has awarded compensation of ₹8,29,500/- in favour of claimants. 5. A perusal of material clearly indicate that on issue no.1 two witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited by the claimants but there is no evidence on record contrary to material placed on record. Learned Tribunal on basis of preponderance of probabilities has decided issue nos.1 and 2 in favour of claimants. There is no material on record to agree with contention of learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, without any irregularity the findings of Tribunal on issue nos.1 and 2, [2025:RJ-JP:2175] (3 of 4) [CMA-4361/2016] cannot be set aside. The appellant himself has not examined driver and conductor of bus, against whom allegations were made. 6. As regard to issue no.4 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that deceased was 17 years old on date of incident and he was minor. Learned Tribunal on basis of evidence has drawn a conclusion that deceased was working as street hawker and earning on his own. Since, there was no material to determine monthly income of deceased, therefore, the Tribunal has adopted formula of minimum wages as unskilled labour and ultimately determined ₹4,316/- as monthly income of deceased. Since, the claim was filed by parents and brother of deceased, because he was unmarried so 50% of income was deducted. Herein up to this extent the determination is based on material available on record. 7. Learned Tribunal has determined 50% as future prospectus though deceased was a minor boy. The claim of the claimants was that the deceased was earning as street hawker. Learned Tribunal has added 50% as future income of ₹2,158/- in monthly income of deceased and determined loss of income as ₹6,99,192/-. 8. The instant award was passed on 05.04.2016 whereas a constitution bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 was decided thereafter. 9. A Coordinate Bench of Bombay High Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender and Ors. while relying upon judgment in case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 and Kaushlya Devi Vs. Shri Karan Arora & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1912 has fixed amount of future prospects as ₹75,000/-. Herein this [2025:RJ-JP:2175] (4 of 4) [CMA-4361/2016] case, an award was passed on 05.04.2016 and out of total award ₹5,00,000/- was paid by way of FDR and remaining ₹3,29,500/- by way of saving bank account. The maximum term of FDR was three years. In case, we set aside a part of award and direct recovery of certain amount it become very difficult after eight or nine years of passing of award to recover any amount of compensation excessively determined by learned Tribunal. 10. Considering the delay in dispensation of justice while considering civil misc. appeal, we are not in a position to allow instant civil misc. appeal only on ground as raised by the counsel for the appellant. 11. In view of aforesaid, I am of considered view that “much water has flowed under the bridge” after filing of the appeal and no stay order was passed in the instant case after filing of the appeal. During last nine years no efforts were made to stop payment of FDRs. Therefore there is no ground to interfere in the judgment passed by learned Tribunal. 12. In view of aforesaid, the misc. appeal is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J Arun/88