Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1194 (RAJ)

Managing Director, Rajasthan v. Chana Ram

2001-08-02

PRAKASH TATIA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on appeal filed by appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.6.1991, the bus of the appellant RNP 3139 was going from Phalodi to Bikaner and at 6.30 to 7 a.m., before Bikaner near Gajner, it met with an accident with truck No. RRN 2289 by which truck driver Bacchu Khan and three other persons Khuda Bux, Bhanwar Singh and Laxman Singh died. The passengers travelling in the bus, i.e., Sohanlal, Salmat Banu, Rakesh Bhargawa, Mani Ram, Nand Kumar, Chuna Ram, Chhaganlal and Mahadeo Singh suffered injuries. Claim cases were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner impleading the appellant and the owner of the truck and the insurance company who insured the truck in the claim petitions. In all these claim cases, learned Tribunal decided the claim by common award dated 27.10.1995 holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the bus as well as driver of the truck and, therefore, held that appellant as owner of the bus and the respondent as owner of truck and the driver and insurance company of the truck are liable to contribute the 50 per cent of the award amount to the claimants. 3. This is an appeal against the award passed in Claim Case No. 101 of 1991. Here is this case, in above accident, the claimant Chuna Ram appellant suffered 6 injuries, out of which three are grievous in nature and three are simple and Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000 in lump sum. In the statement, claimant Chuna Ram stated that he suffered fracture in right leg and there were three fractures in total. One in leg, another on head and third was on shoulder. He remained in hospital from 10.6.1991 to 28.6.1991 and discharge certificate was produced as Exh. 1. For 4 months, there was plaster on right leg and he could not attend the office. He also produced the X-ray and injury report. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. He remained in hospital from 10.6.1991 to 28.6.1991 and discharge certificate was produced as Exh. 1. For 4 months, there was plaster on right leg and he could not attend the office. He also produced the X-ray and injury report. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In support of claim, the Tribunal after considering the evidence awarded the above amount and learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any incredibility in the above amount except the submission that as per Schedule under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the amount of claim for grievous injury can be Rs. 5,000 and for simple injury it can be Rs. 1,000. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of force. 5. Looking to the nature of effect on the body of claimant, if Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000 it cannot be said to be an arbitrary award of amount as held in various judgments that there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for assessment of damages in case of accident and the learned Counsel for the appellant failed to convince that amount in above facts and circumstances of the case is excessive. 6. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of Schedule of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 for award of compensation is concerned, it is suffice to say that this Table does not show that amount given in Table should only be criteria for award of damages. It will be unreasonable to award amount without looking to the effect of injuries. A grave injury may be in the non-vital part or grave injury may be of such nature effecting no future prospects and in case the same treatment is given to an injury which relates to serious consequence of limping of part of the body, where the Tribunals are required to assess the damages as the facts of the case and Schedule cannot be followed without application of mind. 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance as also merit in this appeal and cross-objections. Both are, therefore, dismissed without there being any order as the costs.Appeal dismissed. *******