Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 817 (RAJ)

Rajesh Sharma v. Dhan Singh

2006-03-09

VINEET KOTHARI

body2006
Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-This appeal is directed against the award dated 27.05.1995 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as The Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 19/1992. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant claimant on 112.1990 at about 12.00 PM one Rajesh Sharma alongwith his Munim Sahdeo Meena were going on a motorcycle from village Gerai and near village Gangarda they met with an accident with a Jeep bearing registration No. RSB 7451 which was registered with the Respondent No. 3 the Untied India Insurance Co. Ltd. Jaipur which was being driven by Respondent No. 2 Dharam Singh which collided with the said motorcycle from front side due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep and as a result of which the claimant suffered serious injuries. For the said incident, the claimant lodged the First Information Report No. 154/1990 at Police Station, Sapotara in which challan was also filed against the Respondent No. 2. 3. The Tribunal while passing the award arrived at a finding that the jeep in question was driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent No. 2 and decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the appellant and while deciding Issue Nos. 2 and 4 regarding compensation, the Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-as compensation. The Tribunal found that as per the X-ray report Exhibit P-4, fracture of tibia fibula on the right leg was found which resulted into 10% permanent disability for which Exhibit P-11 was issued by Dr. G.K. Mishra, who appeared in the witness box to prove the said report. The said injured was employed in a private company and was earning Rs. 3,000/-per month. The Tribunal while passing the award took note of the fact that the appellant received 10% disability at the age of 30 years and expected span of life to be 60 years arrived at a conclusion to award a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/ -but since, the Tribunal felt that the said compensation is being paid in one lump sum amount, therefore, such amount was directed to be deposited in a National Bank that it would bear interest amounting to Rs. 300/-per month and thus Rs. 30,000/-was computed against future loss of income. Besides this, the Tribunal also awarded some amount towards medical treatment and thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs. 300/-per month and thus Rs. 30,000/-was computed against future loss of income. Besides this, the Tribunal also awarded some amount towards medical treatment and thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs. 65,325/-out of which Rs. 25,000/-was awarded for the fracture and Rs. 30,000/-for the loss of income and Rs. 8,045/-for medical treatment etc. 4. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5.Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and in support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the Judgment s in the case of United India Insurance Company & Anr. vs. Smt. Anita Sharma & Ors., 2005 (8) RDD 3025 (Raj) DB;; R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 755 , Smt. Gumani vs. Ram Chandra & Ors., 1999 WLC 208, Smt. Sunita Gupta & Ors. vs. Bhairu Lal & Ors., 1990 WLC (UC) 217, Sanjay Kumar vs. Subodh Mandvikar & Anr., 2005 (iv) ACC 248 and Prem Narayan Sharma vs. Sunil Gupta & Ors., 2002 (ii) ACC 612 (DB). 6.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court finds that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced as it is very lower and needs some modification in the award. It is well settled that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal in claim cases has to be just and fair based on relevant appreciation of evidence which comes before it. The Tribunal in the instant case, for loss of income while arriving at the compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/-has reduced the said amount to Rs. 30,000/-without any proper and cogent reasons. The amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/-was awarded for the fracture of tibia fibula on the right leg resulting into 10% disability as certified by the doctor also appears to be conservative. The amount of Rs. 8,045/-awarded for the medical treatment etc based on bills and cash memos produced before it, does not call for any change. 7.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers it just and proper to award adhoc/additional amount of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs. The amount of Rs. 8,045/-awarded for the medical treatment etc based on bills and cash memos produced before it, does not call for any change. 7.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers it just and proper to award adhoc/additional amount of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs. fifty thousand only) in addition to the amount so awarded by the Tribunal as compensation in favour of the appellant on account of 10% disability and loss of income. However, it is made clear that the said amount shall not carry any interest. The Respondent No. 3 shall deposit the said amount in the Tribunal by way of account pay cheque and the Tribunal shall pay the said amount to the appellant within a period of three months from today. 8.With the aforesaid observations and modification in the award, the present appeal is disposed of .