Kan Singh v. Jagdish Singh — 1996 DIGILAW 199 (RAJ)

Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the Award and Decree dated 22.4.88 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000/- as compensation to claimant Jagdish Singh. (2). Claimant Jagdish Singh, on 7-1-83, filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 31,039/-. The case of the claimant as set-out in the claim petition, was that on 10-7-82, at about 8.00 a.m. he was going to Mahatma Gandhi hospital, Jodhpur for his treatment. He was going on his scooter No. RSQ 1489 from Mandore side to Paota side. When he reached near the house of Shri Khet Singh Rathore, a truck No. RJQ 3939 came from behind hit the claimant. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Ranjeet Singh Shankhla. On account of this accident the claimant received injuries on both the legs, left hand, nose, eye and the head. His scooter was, also, damaged. This accident was witnessed by Banshi Lal Bhati and Hari Singh. One taxi, also, came there, in which he was taken to the hospital. The report of the accident was lodged at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur. On the date of the accident the claimant was working as Junior 3 1/2 Lecturer in Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School, Jodhpur and was getting Rs. 1500/- per month as salary. He remai- ned in the hospital for months on account of the fracture on both the legs and was discharged on 23-10-82. Thereafter he had to go to the hospital in physio-Theraphy Unit for exercise as both the legs of the claimant were not fit. The claimant, therefore, claimed the compensation of Rs. 31,039/- Rs. 20,000/-were claimed on account of physical pain and mental agony, Rs. 4000/- were claimed for food and nourishing, Rs.520/- were claimed for employing the servant, Rs. 1500/- were claimed towards the expenses incurred on the relatives and visitors who came to him for asking his well-being, Rs. 3014/- were claimed as the taxi-charges for going to and coming from the hospital, Rs. 500/- were claimed towards the repair-char- ges of the Scooter and Rs. 1500/- were claimed towards medical expenses. (3). The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, awarded a sum of Rs. 3014/- were claimed as the taxi-charges for going to and coming from the hospital, Rs. 500/- were claimed towards the repair-char- ges of the Scooter and Rs. 1500/- were claimed towards medical expenses. (3). The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000/- and dismissed the remaining claim of the claimant regarding engagement of the servant, entertaining the visitors and relatives and towards nourishing food. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, however, allo- wed Rs. 500/- as the expenses incurred on X-ray, part of the claim of Rs. 3014/- and awarded Rs. 1000/- towards the taxi charges for going to and coming from the hospital, Rs. 250/- towards the repairs of the scooter, Rs. 5000/- towards physical pain and mental agony out of Rs. 20,000/- claimed by the claimant. It is against this award dated 22.4.88 that the owner of the vehicle has filed this appeal. No appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation. (4). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident was the result of the negligence on the part of the claimant himself who came from the fort side and his scooter was hit by the road-divider and he fell down on the road. The truck never hit the scooter or the claimant. It was not on account of the rash or negligence on the part of the truck driver Ranjeet Singh that the accident took place and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in holding the driver of the truck responsible for the accident. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive and the claimant failed to prove the claim. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, on the other hand, has supported the award and decree passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. (5). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (6). The claimant, in support of his case, examined five witnesses while the defendant No. 4 Kan Singh (the owner of the truck) examined himself as DW 1 and Narendra Singh as DW 2, who is an eye witness of the accident. (5). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (6). The claimant, in support of his case, examined five witnesses while the defendant No. 4 Kan Singh (the owner of the truck) examined himself as DW 1 and Narendra Singh as DW 2, who is an eye witness of the accident. PW 1 Jagdish, PW 2 Banshi Lal, PW 3 Ram Swaroop and DW 2 Narendra Singh have been produced as the eye witnesses of the occurrence. (7). PW 1 Jagdish is the injured in the accident. He has stated that on 10-7-82, he, on his scooter No. RSQ 1448, was coming from Mahamandir side and was going towards Paota side. When he reached in front of the house of Shri Khet Singh Rathore, the truck, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit him and his scooter, due to which he received injuries. The truck, after hitting him, could be stopped after covering the distance of forty feet. The truck was being driven by its driver Ranjeet Singh. He had to incur Rs. 500/- on the repairs of the scooter. He remained in the hospital for 3 1/2 months and remained on leave from the duties for his treatment. At that time he was getting Rs. 1500/- in all towards the salary. This accident was witnesse by Banshi Lal and certain other persons. During the period when he remained to the hospital, he had, also, spent Rs. 5000/- for nourishing food. In the cross-examination he has stated that he was driving the scooter on the left side of the road. He has specifically denied that his scooter hit the road-divider and stated that the accident occurred due to hitting of his scooter by the truck. He has, also, denied the suggestion that he came from the fort side and hit against the road-divider. (8). PW 2 Banshi Lal has, also, been produced as an eye witness to the occurrence but in his statement he has not said that he had seen the accident. He has only stated that the accident took place at about 8.00 a.m. on 10-7-82 and Jagdish Singh met with an accident. Jagdish Singh was going on the one side of the road and he was going on the other side of the road. He has only stated that the accident took place at about 8.00 a.m. on 10-7-82 and Jagdish Singh met with an accident. Jagdish Singh was going on the one side of the road and he was going on the other side of the road. The people placed Jagdish Singh in a taxi when he went near Jagdish Singh. (9). PW 3 Ram Swaroop is the another eye witness of the occurrence. He has stated that on 10-7-82, at about 8.00 a.m. Jagdish Singh was going on a scooter when he was hit by the truck and he had seen the occurrence. The truck was being driven by Ranjeet Singh. After the accident the truck could be stopped after covering the distance of about 200 feet. (10). A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted on these witnesses but nothing could be elicited which could discredit their testimony. They stood the cross-examination and their evidence inspires confidence. From the evidence of these witnesses it has been established that it was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Ranjeet Singh that the accident took place, in which injured Jagdish Singh received fractures on his legs and due to which he had to remain in the hospital for treatment. (11). Ranjeet Singh the driver of the truck has not been produced in the witness box. DW 2 Narendra Singh has been produced as the eye wit- ness of the occurrence. He has stated that at the time of the accident he was sitting in the drivers cabin alongwith Ranjeet Singh-the driver of the truck. Claimant Jagdish Singh came from fort side on Mandore main road and after covering some distance came on the wrong side of the road and his scooter was hit with the road-divider. The truck, which was being driven by Ranjeet Singh, never hit the scooter. In the cross-examination he had admitted that after looking to the site plan he cannot say where the scooter was lying. He has, also, admitted that he did not go to lodge the report of the accident. He has, also, admitted that he never net Ranjeet Singh because Ranjeet Singh told him that a case has been registered against him. He has, also, admitted that the person coming from the fort side is visible from 100 to 125 feet. (12). He has, also, admitted that he did not go to lodge the report of the accident. He has, also, admitted that he never net Ranjeet Singh because Ranjeet Singh told him that a case has been registered against him. He has, also, admitted that the person coming from the fort side is visible from 100 to 125 feet. (12). A close reading of the statement of DW 2 Narendra Singh shows that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence and his presence at the scene of the occurrence is suspicious. Ranjeet Singh the driver of the truck was the correct person to throw light on the matter but he has not been produced. The evidence of DW 2 Narendra Singh does not inspire confidence and he is a chance witness. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the claimant has been able to prove that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Ranjeet Singh. (13). The next question which requires consideration is regarding the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5250/- towards the loss of salary of 3 1/2 months for the period during which the claimant remained in the hospital and was on leave because if that leave would not have been taken then the leave could be utilised for other purposes. This amount of Rs. 5250/- has rightly been awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. (14). The next amount which has been awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is Rs. 5000/- on account of physical pain and mental agony suffered by the claimant due to this accident. The claimant has not stated even a single word in his statement that he suffered any mental agony or physical pain due to the accident. He has only stated that on account of this accident he cannot walk without the assistance of a walking-stick. In this view of the matter I think it proper to reduce the amount of Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 4000/- towards the physical pain and mental agony suffered by the claimant. (15). The next item which requires consideration is the award of Rs. 2000/- for nourishing food. No evidence has been placed on record to substantiate this claim. In this view of the matter I think it proper to reduce the amount of Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 4000/- towards the physical pain and mental agony suffered by the claimant. (15). The next item which requires consideration is the award of Rs. 2000/- for nourishing food. No evidence has been placed on record to substantiate this claim. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in awarding this amount of Rs. 2000/- to the claimant. (16). Now, so far as the grant of Rs. 1000/- towards conveyance charges for going to and coming from the hospital is concerned, the claimant has not produced any evidence to support this claim. No bill relating to the taxi charges etc. has been filed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case I think it proper to award Rs. 500/- instead of Rs. 1000/- to the claimant under this head. (17). The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 500/- towards x-ray charges and disallowed the remaining claim towards medical expenses. Neither any copy of the X-ray report nor any bill has been placed on record to substantiate this claim and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in awarding Rs. 500/- as X-ray expenses to the claimant. The claimant is, therefore, not entitled for this amount of Rs. 500/- towards X-ray charges. (18). The last item which requires consideration is the claim of Rs. 250/- allowed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal for the repairs of the scooter. A bill has been placed on record by the claimant and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in awarding this amount of Rs. 250/- to the claimant towards scooter repair charges. (19). The claimant is, therefore, entitled for the amount Rs. 5250 towards the leave of 3 1/2 months, Rs. 4000/- towards the physical pain and mental agony, Rs 500/- as conveyance charges for going to and coming from the hospital, Rs. 250/- for repairs of the scooter and as such in all Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The claimant is, also, entitled for the interest @ 10% per annum on this amount as already awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. (20). In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellants, is partly allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 250/- for repairs of the scooter and as such in all Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The claimant is, also, entitled for the interest @ 10% per annum on this amount as already awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. (20). In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellants, is partly allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 14,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- and the claimant is entitled for Rs. 10,000/- as compensation alongwith the interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 7-1-1983.