Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2721 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Vaibhav Kumar

2005-10-19

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-In the present appeal filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has prayed for setting aside the Judgment and award dated 13.07.1994 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana and dismiss the claim petition of respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded in the claim petition are to the effect that on 09.09.1991 at about 12.45 when the claimant Vaibhav Kumar was returning to his house from school, near bus-stand Neem Ka Thana a bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation having Registration No. RNE 6599 driven rashly and negligently struck against him and crushed his left leg, which resulted in permanent disability to the applicant and there has been depreciation of 70% in his physical and mental ability. It was further averred in the petition that he lost one year of his study and due to the accident and was suffering regular pain and his body vibrates. It was also averred that his future has become suspicious and future prospects have been ruined as he will not be able to compete in all those competitions where physical fitness is must and will not be able to get a high post. It was also stated that he was facing problem in doing his day to day work and would be unable to manage the ancestral property due to the accident and will have to suffer whole of his life. He claimed a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/-under different heads. 3. The appellants, filed their reply to the claim petition before the learned Tribunal and stated that the claimant Vaibhav Kumar due to his own fault as on account of heavy school bag had fallen on the road. They denied any negligence or ill intention on the part of the driver and denied their responsibility for the accident. The driver of the bus also filed his reply separately in which he even denied the fact of accident. 4. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties framed issues for deciding the matter and vide its award dated 13.07.1994 allowed compensation of Rs. 5,75,000/-in favour of claimant-respondents with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5,75,000/-in favour of claimant-respondents with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. .6. It is the case of the appellants that in the claim petition it was alleged that the accident occurred on 09.09.1991 but the first information report about the accident was lodged after three months and injury report was prepared after five months of the alleged accident which disclosed the duration of injuries to be only 7 days old. It is further case of the appellants that the claimants did not examine the doctor who immediately examined the injuries of Vaibhav Kumar after accident or the doctors who gave medical treatment to him and the claimant did not produce bed-head tickets and other proofs of medical treatment taken. The grounds of challenge to the award taken by the appellants are being enumerated hereunder:- .(i) That claimant Vaibhav Kumar did not met with an accident by the bus of Corporation. .(ii) The FIR was lodged with enormous delay which period is sufficient for deliberation and concoction and the claimants after accident did not tell anyone that Vaibhav met with an accident by the bus of the Corporation and no passenger of the bus was examined. .(iii) Claimant Vaibhav Kumar fell down on the road due to heavy bag and met with an accident with some other bus but the Tribunal wrongly interpreted it and linked it with the bus of the Corporation. .(iv) Amount awarded under various heads of income, giving special diet, medical facilities, permanent disability, physical pain and sufferings are arbitrary. .(v) Rate of interest awarded is highly excessive and has been fixed without looking into the provisions of Section 35, CPC. .7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents supported the award passed by learned Tribunal and stated that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper. .8. I have considered the submissions made before me. 9. The emphasis of the learned Counsel for the appellants has been on the contention that in fact Vaibhav did not meet with an incident and there was no fault of the bus driver of the Corporation. .8. I have considered the submissions made before me. 9. The emphasis of the learned Counsel for the appellants has been on the contention that in fact Vaibhav did not meet with an incident and there was no fault of the bus driver of the Corporation. On the other hand, it has been contended that the accident which took place has resulted in permanent disability to the claimant-respondent. The learned Tribunal while deciding Issues No. 1 and 3 relating to negligence resulting in the accident, came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence that it was the negligence of the roadways bus driver which resulted in an accident. The Tribunal, in this connection, has taken into consideration the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence. AW. 2 Jawahar Singh and AW. 4 Shyamlal and other witnesses have stated that they have seen the accident which has damaged the leg of the claimant respondent. The appellants, State Road Transport Corporation in reply to the claim petition filed have admitted this aspect of the matter that accident had taken place. Thus, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal appears to be just, reasonable and proper and requires no interference by this Court and the contention of the learned Counsel for appellants stands rejected. 10. Another contention raised on behalf of the appellants has been that the Tribunal has exceeded in awarding compensation at a higher rate without properly appreciating the evidence led before it. On the other hand, it was contended that the learned Tribunal after properly appreciating the entire matter reached to a proper conclusion based on evidence. It was also submitted that when it was found that there was a permanent disability suffered by the respondent claimant in his teenage, therefore, the compensation awarded infact is less looking to his brilliant career and looking to the status of his family. The learned Tribunal, while considering Issue No. 2 in relation to the amount of compensation, reached to the conclusion on the basis of medical evidence, particularly the evidence of AW. 5 Dr. M.K. Mathur, that the boy had sustained severe injury on his left leg and on account of that injury there shall remain deficiency throughout his life which was of about 31%. 5 Dr. M.K. Mathur, that the boy had sustained severe injury on his left leg and on account of that injury there shall remain deficiency throughout his life which was of about 31%. Thus, on the basis of medical evidence, treatment slips and many operations numbering 8 to 9 of the leg having taken place, the learned Tribunal made the award on different heads. In such matters, the Tribunal is supposed to consider the permanent deficiency sustained and also the future prospects of the injured. Since, the finding regarding the accident and the negligence on the part of the driver of the Roadways has been established, therefore, in my humble opinion, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the quantum of award on different heads. More so, reasons have been assigned for awarding compensation on account of permanent disability. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the decisions of various Courts and in my view the compensation which has been awarded on account of permanent disability suffered in an accident, nowhere appears to be excessive. The learned Tribunal while examining the evidence has given cogent reasons and also considered the age of the boy and his further prospects. It has also been considered that the permanent deficiency caused on account of accident will deprive the boy throughout his life of certain opportunities in his life and this aspect of the matter cannot be disputed looking to the evidence led on behalf of the claimant-respondents that the boy was of a good family of engineers. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it proper to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the arguments raised on behalf of appellants in respect of compensation being awarded at higher side or excessive are rejected. .11. The other contentions raised by learned Counsel for appellants in respect of FIR being lodged with a delay, claimant Vaibhav Kumar falling down on the road due to heavy bag and meeting accident with some other bus, compensation amount being arbitrary and the rate of interest being highly excessive are meritless. .12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. .13. .12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. .13. As discussed hereinabove that in the reply filed by the appellant to the claim petition wherein the fact of accident and sustaining injury by respondent claimant has been admitted and further in view of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before the learned Tribunal, it stands proved that accident took place with the bus of the appellant which was being driven by its driver negligently. In the above circumstances, delay in lodging the FIR is also not of any significance. The contention of the learned Counsel with regard to interest awarded by the Tribunal that it is at the higher side requires consideration. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition which is not liable to be sustained for the reason that same is excessive and not being in consonance with the prevailing Reserve Bank policies and the various decisions of Apex Court. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Patricia J. Mahajan & Ors., 2002 (6) SCC 281 , the interest was reduced to 9% per annum. In another case reported in JT 2001 (1) SC 375, Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., the Honble Court while dealing the matter on the point of interest has observed: .“Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the MV Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that “in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date nor earlier than the date of making claim as may be specified in this behalf .” Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants.” 14. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants.” 14. In view of above discussion and law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing the claim petition requires to be reduced from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. The impugned award, therefore, stands modified to the above extent. 15. The appeal stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove on the point of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal after confirming the rest of the impugned award dated 13.07.1994 in MACC No. 21/1992.