Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3197 (RAJ)

Johari Lal v. Hanuman Prasad

2005-12-03

VINEET KOTHARI

body2005
Judgment Dr.Vineet Kothari, J.-This appeal is directed against the award dated 03.05.1997 of MACT, Bhilwara, deciding the claim case No. 177/1994. 2. The claimant-appellant Smt. Sayar Bai was standing with her sister Manoharma Devi near the Guru Nanak Petrol Pump when the Truck No. RJE-4197 being driven by respondent No. 4 Ladu Lal took a sudden turn towards the petrol pump while coming on the road and on account of said rash and negligent driving, another Truck No. DIG-7653 which was being driven by the respondent No. 1 Hanuman Prasad also collided with the said truck and as a result of the collision of these two vehicles the Truck No. RJE-4197 hit the claimant-appellant and as a result of said accident the claimant-appellant suffered injuries on her both the legs below knees and the said injuries resulted in fractures and permanent disability of both the legs. Exhibit-15 is the permanent disability certificate of the doctor. 3. The Tribunal after arriving at a finding of contributory negligence of both the truck drivers in question proceeded to compute the compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant and in all awarded compensation of Rs. 75,000/-in the following heads: 4. The Tribunal directed the said sum to be paid with interest @ 12% per annum. 5. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has come up in an appeal before this Court seeking enchantment of the compensation awarded. Shri A.K. Rajvanshy learned Counsel for the appellant has cited number of Judgment s before this Court where in similar circumstances the High Courts and Supreme Court enhanced the compensation substantially. A few of the cases deserve to be noted here. 6. The Honble Supreme Court in Zumar Lal vs. Nand Kishore & Ors., 2001 ACJ 2007 for the injury suffered by a 62 years old person in the form of amputation of right leg resulting in permanent disability where the High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-the same was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. 1,00,000/-the same was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. vs. Giriraj N. Kinagi, 2004 ACJ 1540 for the injury in the form of compound fracture of right femur with crush injury above knee joint with bone exposed from wounds and compound fracture of right tibia and crush injury above ankle joint resulting in shortening of right leg by 3½" injuries, stiffening of ankle, disfigurement of limb and permanent disability of 60 per cent, the Division Bench enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,19,000/-to Rs. 7,45,000/-. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Arun Kumar Thapar vs. Yashwant Indapurkar, 2004 ACJ 1946 for the injury suffered by the claimant in the form of fracture in socket of femur bone of left leg resulting in shortening of leg by 1.5 cm. as a result of which the injured developed secondary osteoarthritis and the disability was permanent, the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 1,43,000/-to Rs. 1,69,000/-. In yet another case the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shiva vs. Chander Mohan & Ors., 2004 ACJ 2124 in the case of injury resulting in 70% permanent physical functional impairment suffered by a labourer resulting in amputation of left leg above knee joint, the compensation of Rs, 1,47,340/-was enhanced to Rs, 3,00,000/-in appeal. 7. Relying on these Judgment s, learned Counsel prayed that appropriate enhancement deserves to be granted in the present case also. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that looking to the contemporary period of accident which took place in the present case on 212.1993 and the fact that the claimant-appellant was only a house wife and was not employed anywhere, therefore, in view of the nature of injures, the compensation so awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call any interference for enhancement by this Court. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it appears to this Court that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is rather conservative and on lower side and the facts of the case call for some enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As far as award under the first three headings medical expenses, future medical expenditure and expenditure of attendants are concerned, the award of the Tribunal does not require any enhancement. As far as award under the first three headings medical expenses, future medical expenditure and expenditure of attendants are concerned, the award of the Tribunal does not require any enhancement. However, the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-for pain and mental agony and Rs. 25,000/-for permanent disability deserve to be enhanced. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate if these amounts are doubled and sum of Rs, 30,000/-for pain and mental suffering and Rs. 50,000/-under the head of permanent disability in place of Rs. 25,000/-is awarded. Claim Award (i) Towards medical expenses and treat- ment. Rs. 60,000/-Rs. 20,000/- (ii) Future expenditure of medical care. Rs. 25,000/-Rs. 10,000/- (iii) Expenditure of attendants. Rs. 15,000/-Rs. 5,000/- (iv) Pains, suffering and mental agony Rs. 1,00,000/-Rs. 15,000/- (v) Compensation for permanent disability. Rs. 1,15,000/-Rs. 25,000/- Total: Rs. 75,000/- 9. Thus, the total enhancement of Rs. 40,000/-deserves to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant. The amount of enhancement shall however bear interest only @ 7.5% from the date of award of Tribunal i.e., 03.05.1997 till the date of disbursement. Since, both the drivers of the trucks were held equally responsible for the said accident, the insurer of both the trucks shall bear the total liability in equal share. The amount of enhancement alongwith interest shall be paid by account payee cheque in favour of the claimant-appellant within a period of three months from today. 10. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.