Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 435 (RAJ)

R. S. P. T. C. v. Chandra Shekhar

2002-02-19

PRAKASH TATIA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Award dated 22-6-98. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,43,000/- to the claimants in claim case No.247/ 94. It is stated that on 8-11-93, claimant was supervising some work and he was standing with his scooter. The driver of appellant driving bus came rashly and negligently and after breaking the traffic signal, hit the claimant and the scooter. The impact was so forceful that claimant dragged with the vehicle. The claimant suffered number of injuries and in only treatment, the claimant incurred Rs. 2,00,283/- for which claimant produced bills from Ex. 1 to Ex. 230. The Tribunal in addition to above bill amount of Rs. 2,00,283/-, awarded Rs. 1,20,000/ - by observing that applicant/ claimant is a Government servant, holding the post of Jr. Engineer and he would have been in position to do private work of consultation etc. after attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, the Tribunal by taking help of Rs. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held that claimant is likely to suffer loss of Rs. 2000/- per month in future and applied the multiplier of 5 and awarded Rs. 1,20,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 20,000/- under the head of mental sufferings, Rs. 2,000/- for scooter repairing and in total Rs. 3,43,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The appellant has challenged the above award on the ground that award is too excessive and the Tribunal has committed serious illegality in awarding award amount for the period after the superannuation of petitioner and wrongly applied the multiplier of 5 by taking help of Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. 3. The respondent/claimant has filed the cross-objection under R. 41, R.22 Civil Procedure Code and submitted that claimant suffered large number of injuries and most of the injuries are fractures and looking to the effect of injuries and expenditure incurred in the treatment, it is clear that it is a case of serious accident causing grievous injuries to the claimant and it resulted in number of problems to the claimant. The Tribunal has not considered the various heads of claim of the claimant which were narrated in para no.3 to 8 of the cross-objection. The Tribunal has not considered the various heads of claim of the claimant which were narrated in para no.3 to 8 of the cross-objection. It is also submitted by learned counsel for claimant that though there is no specific pleading claiming any specific amount on the ground that claimant will be deprived of his income after attaining the age of superannuation, but according to learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, the reason given by the Tribunal and calculation for awarding compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- is only a mode adopted by Tribunal to assess over all compensation and is one of the mode applied by Tribunal. Even if reasoning's given by the Tribunal are not in accordance with law, even then because of this reason, only award cannot be interfered by reducing the amount when intact sufferings of the claimant are grievous and proved from the documents available on record and even if that finding is set aside, then claimant can be awarded lump sum award of compensation in addition to the medical expenses. 4. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that looking to the nature of injuries, the Tribunal, while assessing the loss and damages, gave reason that claimant could have joined some private work after attaining the age of superannuation and for that purpose the Tribunal adopted the method provided under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, but at the same time, it is also clear that Tribunal has not awarded suitable compensation to the claimant looking to the nature of injuries and looking to the sufferings of the claimant. It is true that the employee was paid salary by the employer for the period for which he was in employment, but the sufferings of claimant are in addition to that salary. Therefore, award of sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- can be treated of just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case to the claimant, even if reasoning's given by the Tribunal are set aside, therefore, I do not find any force in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that claim of the claimant deserves to be enhanced looking to the number of injuries and looking to the treatment undertook by the claimant, but I do not find any force in the cross-objection because of the reason that Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that claim of the claimant deserves to be enhanced looking to the number of injuries and looking to the treatment undertook by the claimant, but I do not find any force in the cross-objection because of the reason that Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- looking to over all situation of the case in hand and it is not necessary to judge each and every head of claim and if there is reasoning and just compensation is awarded by the Tribunal, then it cannot be set aside just to bifurcate the claim in various head and, therefore, the substantial justice has been done by the Tribunal while awarding Rs. 1,20,000/- being additional amount other than medical expenditure. I do not find any force in the cross-objections therefore, appeal as also cross-objections are dismissed. No order as to the cist.Appeal dismissed. *******