Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 495 (RAJ)

Phool Chand Yogi v. Sawai Singh

2006-02-14

G.S.SARRAF

body2006
Judgment G.S. Sarraf, J.-Heard Shir K.N. Tiwari, for the appellants and Shri Vinod Tyagi for Respondent No. 3. 2. Thefacts in brief are that at about 6.15 PM on 27.08.1991, Truck RRL 9691 collided with a Babool tree near Ladi Ki Puliya within the jurisdiction of Jamwa Ramgarh Police Station and then fell down under the Puliya. One Srawan Lal died while the applicant -appellant Phool Chand Yogi sustained injuries in the accident. The injured Phool Chand Yogi and the legal representatives of the deceased Srawan filed two separate claims in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District Jaipur. According to the claim petitions, the driver Sawai Singh was driving the Truck rashly and negligently. The learned Tribunal disposed of the two claims by one Judgment and passed an award of Rs. 1,83,000/-in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Srawan and an award of Rs. 21,000/-was passed in favour of the injured Phool Chand. The claimants have filed these two appeals against the Judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 13.05.1996. 3. Shri K. N. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 3 only. He has contended that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration loss of income and loss of future prospects of income of the injured Phool Chand and has awarded compensation which is clearly inadequate. He has argued that in the matter of deceased Srawan, no amount has been awarded for love and affection and the learned Tribunal has not assessed the income correctly and has not adopted the right multiplier. He has, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation in both the appeals. He has placed reliance on 2002 ACJ 1166. 4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has supported the Judgment of the learned Tribunal and has said that there is no ground for interference. 5. The injured Phool Chand sustained two injuries-one on left arm and the other on left leg as per the copy of injury report (Ex. 8). According to the medical certificate (Ex. 6), the permanent disability was to the extent of 4% only. The injury report is dated 27.08.1981 while the medical certificate of disability is of 1994. The Doctors who treated, prepared injury report, took X-ray and issued certificate of permanent disability, have not been examined. 8). According to the medical certificate (Ex. 6), the permanent disability was to the extent of 4% only. The injury report is dated 27.08.1981 while the medical certificate of disability is of 1994. The Doctors who treated, prepared injury report, took X-ray and issued certificate of permanent disability, have not been examined. X-ray report does not appear to have been exhibited. It does not appear that the Doctor who issued the medical certificate of disability ever treated or clinically examined the injured Phool Chand. In these circumstances and on the basis of evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of injured Phool Chand is just and proper and no interference is called for. 6. As regards the deceased Srawan, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs. 1,500/-per month. Bhagoti (AW-1), who is the wife of the deceased Srawan and Phool Chand (AW-2) have stated that the deceased Srawan was a labourer and earned Rs. 70/-per day. I do not think that the learned Tribunal has arrived at any wrong conclusion on the point of the income of the deceased after considering these two statements. Bhagoti (AW-1) says that her husband was 30 years of age at the time of his death, whereas in the post-mortem report (Ex-3), the age of the deceased Srawan has been shown to be 35 years. The learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs. 1,000/-after deducting 1/3 amount as the own expenses of the deceased and has adopted multiplier of 14. Looking to the age of the deceased, his future prospects, age of the claimants and after considering all facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that a multiplier of 17 instead of 14 should have been adopted in this case. If we adopt the multiplier of 17, then the amount comes to (1000 x 12 x 17) Rs. 2,04,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded another Rs. 15,000/-to Bhagoti wife of the deceased on account of loosing company of her husband and mental torture. I am of the opinion that on account of loss of love and affection, an amount of Rs. 11,000/-may further be awarded to the claimants. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,30,000 /-. 7. The learned Tribunal has awarded another Rs. 15,000/-to Bhagoti wife of the deceased on account of loosing company of her husband and mental torture. I am of the opinion that on account of loss of love and affection, an amount of Rs. 11,000/-may further be awarded to the claimants. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,30,000 /-. 7. In the result, Appeal No. 810/1996 is dismissed, whereas the Appeal No. 812/96 is allowed to the extend stated above and the amount of compensation is increased from Rs. 1,83,000/-to Rs. 2,30,000/-. The claimants appellants will be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award of the Tribunal to the date of deposit/realization on the difference amount. If the aforesaid amount is not paid or deposited within a period of two months, then the respondents will have to pay interest @ 12% p. a.. The learned Tribunal will apportion the amount between the claimants and will pass necessary orders regarding payment/deposit thereof . No order as to costs.