Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 315 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Jumiya

2003-02-26

N.P.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu dated 18-10-2000 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,19,436/- to the claimant-respondent No. 1. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Court below claiming a sum of Rs. 3,40,800/-, alleging inter alia that on 8-3-99, at about 1.00 p.m., she boarded the bus from Churu for Fatehpur, at about 2.30 p.m., when the bus reached Ramgarh Bus Stand, Fatehpur, she requested to hault the bus, and when the bus stopped, she started alighting from the bus. In that process, before she could completely alight, the driver started the bus, as a result of which, she fell down, and the rear tyre of the bus ran over her right leg. Thus, according to the claimant, she suffered the injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the appellant's driver, Kajod Mal. 3. According to the claimant, she was 40 years of age at the time of accident, and has assessed her income to be Rs. 2,000/- per month, Rs. 1,00,000 was claimed to be the medical expenditure, Rs. 8000/- has been claimed for the expenses incurred in journey to Jaipur/Siker, Rs. 5000/- for lodging and boarding, Rs. 7800/- for food etc. of the attendant, Rs. 2,20,000/- has been claimed for mental pain and agony. 4. The driver contested the claim by denying the accident to be on account of any negligence on the part of the driver. It was pleaded that as a matter of fact, the victim was not at all travelling in the bus, as is clear from para 10 of the claim petition. Alternatively, it was pleaded that even if she was travelling in the bus, the happening of the accident is not possible in the manner alleged. With these pleadings, it was claimed that the claim petition be dismissed. 5. A joint written statement was filed again by the General Manager of the Roadways and the driver, virtually reiterated the same pleading. 6. The learned trial Court framed four issues. With these pleadings, it was claimed that the claim petition be dismissed. 5. A joint written statement was filed again by the General Manager of the Roadways and the driver, virtually reiterated the same pleading. 6. The learned trial Court framed four issues. The first related to the happening of accident on account of negligence, second issue is related to the question as to whether the defendant No. 1 was driving the bus in the course of employment and for the benefit of the employer, while the third issue related to the quantum of compensation. 7. During trial, the claimant examined herself, so also her husband AW/2, Lal Mohd.; and tendered in evidence some 135 documents. On the side of the defendants, the conductor of the bus Harphool Singh was examined as AW/1. 8. The learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant, and passed the award as mentioned above. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment, it was contended on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant in the first instance that in para 10 of the claim petition the claimant has pleaded to be not travelling in the delinquent bus as such the appellant could not be held liable. In this very sequence, it was contended that the claimant has not produced even the journey ticket which may have been issued to her, had she travelled in the bus as contended, the next submission made was that the disability certificate has neither been issued by the Medical Board nor does it make any reference to the injury report. The next submission made was that the injury report is not signed by the Doctor and the Doctor who examined the claimant has not been produced before the Court. In this very regard it was also contended that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of personal visual observation of the victim, regarding permanent disability even without appropriate disability-certificate, which according to the learned Counsel vitiates the impugned award. It was then contended that it was clear case of the appellant as pleaded in para 15 of the written statement that the accident could not occur in the manner alleged as there is no door in the bus wherefrom the claimant could alight in the driver side. Then assailing the quantum it was contended that a sum of Rs. It was then contended that it was clear case of the appellant as pleaded in para 15 of the written statement that the accident could not occur in the manner alleged as there is no door in the bus wherefrom the claimant could alight in the driver side. Then assailing the quantum it was contended that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded twice over for the same injury which is bad. 10. Controverting the submissions, it was contended that from a reading of para 10, it can of course be spelt out that the claimant was not travelling in the delinquent bus, but then, it was submitted that the claimant is only an illiterate lady, and para 10 is only a part of the proforma, and the entire claim petition is required to be read and construed in an intelligible manner, if the claim petition is construed from that stand of point, it is clear that the categoric case of the claimant is that she boarded the bus from Churu and was alighting at Fatehpur, in which process, she sustained injuries, this obviously means that she was travelling in the bus ? It was also contended that significantly, when the claimant was in the witness-box, not a word was suggested to her in this regard on the anvil of para 10 of the claim petition, else she would have clearly explained, as to how did she commit this error. Replying the other contentions, it was replied that the medical certificate produced on record being Ex. 130 clearly mentions that the claimant has suffered a permanent disablement to the extent of 30%. The visual observation made by the learned Judge only strengthened the medical certificate, and has been used to negative the contention that the certificate, is not issued by the Medical Board, though, it has been issued by the orthopaedist. In that view of the matter, according to the learned Counsel for the claimant, the findings recorded by the learned Counsel trial Court do not require any interference. In that view of the matter, according to the learned Counsel for the claimant, the findings recorded by the learned Counsel trial Court do not require any interference. It was also contended that looking to the age of the victim at the time of accident, and looking to the deformity, and permanent disability suffered by her as deposed by herself and her husband, the compensation awarded is rather grossly inadequate, as for the entire rest of the life she will suffer unimaginable pain, and agony, and would be living a life of invalidity. It is also contended that a look at the injury report does show that it very much bears the signatures of the Doctor examining the claimant and no legal provision has been cited on the side of the appellant to show that production of the Doctor before the learned trial Court was such a necessity as may vitiate the award on account of omission to produce. Regarding Para 15 of the written statement it was contended that there is no such plea therein and it is nowhere the case of the claimant that she alighted from the bus from any door existing towards the driver side. Regarding making of award of Rs. 50,000/-, twice over for the same injury, it was contended that one amount of 50,000/- has been awarded for the injury suffered, grafting made and operation suffered by the claimant while another amount has been awarded for the pain and sufferings which she will suffer on account of the injury for the rest of the life. With these submissions, it was contended that the appeal be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions; and have gone through the record. 12. A look at the claim petition shows that the claim petition has been submitted in the proforma prescribed under the Rules, and bears the thumb mark of the claimant on every page. Para 10 required the claimant to inform as to whether the person with respect to whom the compensation is being claimed was travelling in the vehicle involved in the accident, if yes, the place of commencement of journey, and the place of destination, if known, and in the reply side, the only word mentioned is " ugha ". 13. Para 10 required the claimant to inform as to whether the person with respect to whom the compensation is being claimed was travelling in the vehicle involved in the accident, if yes, the place of commencement of journey, and the place of destination, if known, and in the reply side, the only word mentioned is " ugha ". 13. Thus, on the plain technical and literal reading of the claim petition (Para 10) does of course show that the claimant was not travelling in the bus. But then, the matter does not end here, inasmuch as, the claim petition is to be read in its entirety, and in an intelligent manner. Suffice it to say that if the victim was not travelling in the bus, she could possibly not suffer the accident, and injury. In this sequence, a look at para 29 of the claim petition, which also very much forms the part of pleading does show that she has categorically and vividly narrated as to where she had boarded the bus, and what was the destination, and that she was travelling in the delinquent bus, and vividly gives out how the accident occurred. It is also mentioned therein that a criminal case for this accident was also registered, wherein challan was filed. I find on record the certified copy of the first report being Ex. P/1, and significantly this is lodged on 8-3-1999 itself at 4.00 p.m., and gives the exact description of the accident as contained in the claim petition. Then Ex. P/5 is the statement of the claimant recorded by the police on 8-3-1999 at 4.00 p.m., on the basis of which, the first report was registered, then Ex. P/6 is the injury report, which again is dated 8-3-1999 itself, reporting inter alia crush injury on the medial aspect of the right leg. Thus, all these things taken together, coupled with the fact that the claimant while in the witness-box was not confronted with this pleading in para 10 of the claim petition, rather she was not even suggested that she was not travelling in the bus, and has falsely lodged the claim. Thus, all these things taken together, coupled with the fact that the claimant while in the witness-box was not confronted with this pleading in para 10 of the claim petition, rather she was not even suggested that she was not travelling in the bus, and has falsely lodged the claim. Similarly, even the conductor, Harphool Singh, though has appeared to depose that no accident occurred, nor he did learn about anybody receiving injuries etc., but then, significantly, he also did not muster the courage even to depose by word of mouth that, the claimant was not travelling in the bus on the fateful day. He admits about the criminal case having been registered, and also deposes towards the end of cross-examination that it is correct to suggest that he is giving false statement to save the accused Kajod Mal. It is different story that in the very next breath, he has retraced from his statement. All this cumulatively leads to the irrestible conclusion that the pleading contained in para 10 of the claim petition is a mere error, and it is established that the claimant was travelling in the bus on the date, and time as claimed in para 29, and did suffer the accident, and in the manner alleged. I have read para 15 of the written statement also and do not find any such plea also out the claimant having alighted from the driver side of the bus. Likewise, in the totality of the circumstances found above, non-production of journey ticket by the claimant also is of not much consequence. From perusal of the statement of the claimant, and the police documents, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court was in any manner wrong in concluding that the accident occurred resulting into the claimant sustaining injury and that the accident was the out come of negligent driving of the bus by the driver defendant No. 1. 14. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it may be observed that the injury report does very much bear the signatures of the Doctor and in my view there is no authority for proposition that until and unless the disability certificate is issued by the medical board, it cannot be used by the claimant for claiming compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,216/- by way of medical expenses, which is duly supported by the bills and vouchers. Though, some 4-5 bills do not mention the name of the claimant to be the person to whom the bills have been issued, but then the sequence in which they have been issued does clearly establish that they relate to the claimant herself. Then the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- for injury Nos. 2 and 3, which are simple injuries. Then the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the grievous injuries suffered on the leg being injury No. 1. A perusal of the impugned award shows that to seek support to the injury report and to assess the magnitude of the injury the learned Judge had seen the injured part of the body of the victim and has observed what was found. Significantly, this was done in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and it does not transpire from record, either that any objection was ever raised on the side of the appellant in the learned trial Court adopting this course nor it was shown or even contended that the injury being noticed is not the out come of the accident in question or that the present visible state of injury is not the entire result of the accident in question. In that view of the matter, when the claimant had to undergo grafting operation and suffered such serious injury, the amount of the Rs. 50,000/- as awarded cannot be said to be grossly excessive. Coming to the another sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal for the physical and mental pain and suffering resulting from injury No. 1, according to Ex. 130, there is 30% disability in the right knee, the claimant has clearly deposed that on account of the disability, she cannot properly sit, or stand up, the AW/2 Lal Mohd., her husband, has deposed that the claimant cannot herself sit, nor she can get up without support. Thus, at the prime age of the life, being 40 years, she has been rendered substantially invalid. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded being Rs. Thus, at the prime age of the life, being 40 years, she has been rendered substantially invalid. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded being Rs. 50,000/- under this head can also not be said to be excessive.The net result is that I do not find any force in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******