Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2034 (RAJ)

Shrawan Kumar v. Devi Sing

2005-08-03

V.K.BALI, VINEET KOTHARI

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment & order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.3.2000 dismissing S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1742 of 1999 which was filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 9.9.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') partly allowing the Claim Petition No. 32 of 1989 filed by the present appellant. 2. The present appeal arises in the back ground of the accident dated 7.7.1988 at about 10.00 a.m., which occurred on account of colliding of Tanker RJA 1442 and it was case set up by the appellant that on account of the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.1, the appellant, who was 20 years of age at that time, had suffered permanent disability on account of amputation of his left leg and such permanent disability was to the extent of 43.33%. The claimant further submits that he was a person with sound health and good physique and was earning Rs. 18,000/- p.a. at that time. 3. The total claim made by the appellant was to the extent of Rs. 10,70,700/- The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- in favour of the claimant under the various heads and directed the respondent No.5, United India Insurance Company Limited, Tonk Road, Jaipur to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the awarded amount with interest for which the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 5 were held jointly and severally liable. For remaining amount of Rs. 6,000/- and interest thereon, the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 were held jointly and severally liable. The interest @ Rs. 12% p.a. was allowed. 4. Being aggrieved by the said award the appellant preferred the first appeal before this Court which was dismissed by the learned single Judge as aforesaid by the order dated 6.3.2000. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Division Bench. 5. Vide order dated 3.3.2005 the names of respondent No. 1-Devi Singh son of Shri Sumer Singh and respondent No. 4-Bhonri Lal son of Shri Kanhiya Lai, who is said to have expired as noted in the order dated 19.9.2003, were deleted. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Division Bench. 5. Vide order dated 3.3.2005 the names of respondent No. 1-Devi Singh son of Shri Sumer Singh and respondent No. 4-Bhonri Lal son of Shri Kanhiya Lai, who is said to have expired as noted in the order dated 19.9.2003, were deleted. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case Grifan v. Sarbjeet Singh & Ors., 2000 ACJ 1370 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court allowing a review petition in the case of amputation of right leg of injured of the age of 25 years with the earning of Rs. 4,000/- p.m., enhanced the award of Rs. 2,00,000/- ordered by the High Court by a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Having considered the matter in its entirety and following Griffan's case (supra), we are inclined to enhance the award of Rs. 1,56,000/- by a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- further. Injured Shrawan Kumar was a young man of 20 years of age and his left leg was amputated on account of the accident in question. He is said to be earning Rs. 18,000/- p.a. from the agriculture. Naturally, the amputation of his left leg has rendered him completely disabled to carry out such agriculture operations in field and he would be unable to live his normal life. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the award of Rs. 1,56,000/- is on the lower side. Therefore, following the aforesaid case, we further enhance the award by a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for which the respondents No. 2, 3 & 5 are jointly and severally liable. Respondent No. 5 United India Insurance Company shall pay the said enhanced compensation to the appellant within a period of three months from today and it shall be free to recover the said amount beyond the amount as per the insurance policy in question from the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 8. In the result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of as indicated above.Appeal disposed of as above. *******