Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 132 (RAJ)

Ganga Ram v. Mohan Lal

2008-01-17

MANAK MOHTA

body2008
Judgment Manak Mohta, J.—This Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and Award dt. 03.05.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MACT Case No. 924/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 47,400/- and made recoverable from the owner as well as from Insurance Company of the vehicle. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.05.2001, at about 8.00 PM, when the appellant was coming out of his Motor-body Workshop and walking on the correct side of the road, a Motor Cycle bearing No. RJ 27-9M/4569 was going beside the Motor chesis Workshop situated near the Siphon, Udaipur which was being driven by Mohanlal rashly and negligently at a high speed, hit the claimant-appellant, on account of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his person, and his left leg fractured, therefore, the claimant filed a claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- in the M.A.C.T. Udaipur by making the driver, owner the Insurance Company of the Motor Cycle as parties to the petition. 3. After service of notice, non-claimants No.1 and 2 (Driver and Owner of the said vehicle) filed a joint reply whereas non-claimant No.3 filed a separate reply to the claim petition, Non-claimants No.1 and 2, in their reply, have stated that at the time accident, the said vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.3, therefore, non-claimant No.3 is responsible to pay compensation to the injured-claimant, if any. Non-claimant No.3, in his reply, has stated that at the time of accident, there was no valid and effective driving licence with the driver of the said vehicle. Non-claimant No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, in that situation, he is not liable to pay compensation to the injured-claimant. 4. Non-claimant No.3, in his reply, has stated that at the time of accident, there was no valid and effective driving licence with the driver of the said vehicle. Non-claimant No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, in that situation, he is not liable to pay compensation to the injured-claimant. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:- ß1- vk;k fnukad 17-05-2001 dks foi{kh la[;k 1 eksgu ds }kjk okgu la[;k vkj ts 27& 9,e 4569 dks xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k xaxkjke nq?kZVukxzLr gqvk vkSj mlds Ókjhj ij lk/kkj.k ,oa xaHkhj pksVsa igqaphA 2- vk;k izkFkhZ Dyse esa crk;suqlkj jkfÓk 6]50]000@& ;k vU; dksbZ jkfÓk izfrdj esa foi{khx.k ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj ;fn gka rks fdruh o fdl fdl lsA 3- vk;k foi{khx.k }kjk vius tokc esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifÙk;ksa ds vk/kkj ij mudk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugh curk gSA 4- nknjlh-Þ 5. During trial, statement of claimant Gangaram was recorded as AW 1 and documents from Ex.1 to Ex.22 were got exhibited. In defence, non-claimants have not produced any evidence. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dt. 03.05.2005 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 47,400/- in favour of the claimant and against the non-claimants. 7. The claimant-appellant, being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation and aggrieved by the judgment and award dt. 03.05.2005, preferred this Misc. Appeal before this Court for enhancement of the awarded amount of compensation. 8. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the material available on record. The appellant has sustained several injuries on his body during accident and had under gone for treatment for a long time. In this regard, the injured-appellant had to go several times for the purpose of treatment under the advise of the doctor to Ahmedabad. For that, he had to pay a lot of money by way of transportation charges, medical tests etc. Likewise, he had to pay heavy expenditure on the medicines as prescribed by the doctors from time to time. It was further submitted that looking to the nature of injuries sustained to the injured-appellant in the accident, he had to go for long time treatment under the advise of the doctors. Likewise, he had to pay heavy expenditure on the medicines as prescribed by the doctors from time to time. It was further submitted that looking to the nature of injuries sustained to the injured-appellant in the accident, he had to go for long time treatment under the advise of the doctors. In this respect, the claimant has stated all things in his statement and proved the expenditure incurred by the injured-appellant but the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper, reasonable and adequate compensation. It was contended that looking to the nature of the injuries sustained to the injured-appellant, he became permanently disable for performing his routine day to day and work of motor Workshop. The appellant has produced “Disability Certificate” (Ex.12) certifying 12% permanent disability by the Board of the Doctors before the learned Tribunal. From perusal of the Discharge Certificate (Ex.13), it appears that the injured-appellant remained “Indoor Patient” for 3 months in the hospital and even thereafter, he remained confined to bed for 6 months at home and he could not be worked and suffered a lot of monetary loss but the learned Tribunal has not considered and has awarded only Rs. 37,000/- in this respect that could not be said to be adequate compensation in this respect. Further the appellant has suffered a huge amount by way of transportation charges but the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5,000/- and for loss of working Rs. 5,400/- for three months @ Rs. 1,800/- per month but they are against the record. On these submissions, it was prayed that amount of compensation may be enhanced and the appeal be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the judgment given by the learned Tribunal. I have considered the rival contentions. The claimant-appellant has appeared before the learned Tribunal and he has stated the full description of the injuries sustained in accident and in support thereof, he also placed “Medical Treatment Documents” including Prescription Slip, Medicine Bills, Treatment Slips for several times and Dis-charge Certificate. I have considered the rival contentions. The claimant-appellant has appeared before the learned Tribunal and he has stated the full description of the injuries sustained in accident and in support thereof, he also placed “Medical Treatment Documents” including Prescription Slip, Medicine Bills, Treatment Slips for several times and Dis-charge Certificate. He has also produced permanent Disability Certificate (Ex.12) given by the Board of Doctors before the learned Tribunal but the learned Tribunal has not given due weightage to the material placed by the claimant-appellant and awarded meager amounts under different heads, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be enhanced by way of modification. So far as happening of accident is concerned, there is no dispute from the respondent’s side to this extent. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the material available on record and considering the evidence of the injured-appellant who sustained injuries in the accident, has rightly held that the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the concerned driver of the offending vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The contention raised by the respondent-Insurance Company was not found proved. No evidence was led by them. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly held respondent No.3 for the payment of compensation. In this way, the claim of the injured-appellant is tenable against the Insurance Company. 10. I have considered the amount of compensation awarded under the various heads to the injured-claimant-appellant. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- for medicine and transportation expenses, which is not just and proper. Taking into consideration the material available on record that the injured-appellant suffered heavy expenditure to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- The injured-appellant has produced and proved the Disability Certificate, by which, he has caused permanent disability upto 12% as certified by the Team of the Doctors (Ex.12). Taking into consideration this fact, and the work of Motor Workshop in which the appellant was engaged, the amount of Rs. 34,000/- is required to be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- under the head “Pain and Suffering”. Likewise, the learned Tribunal has awarded under the head “Loss of work” for 3 months @ Rs. Taking into consideration this fact, and the work of Motor Workshop in which the appellant was engaged, the amount of Rs. 34,000/- is required to be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- under the head “Pain and Suffering”. Likewise, the learned Tribunal has awarded under the head “Loss of work” for 3 months @ Rs. 1,800/- per month but looking to the material available on record, that his one leg was fractured and he remained six months confined to bed and considering the amount of income of the injured-appellant, there is no rebuttal from the other side and the amount is enhanced from Rs. 5,400/- to Rs. 10,400/-. Thus, total amount is enhanced to Rs. 31,000/- in addition to amount of Rs. 47,400/- has been awarded earlier. Besides the above, it is also proper to award interest on the enhanced amount @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the application till its realization. 11.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the Award is modified by enhancing Rs. 31,000/- thereby, total comes to Rs. 47,400/- plus 31,000/- = Rs. 78,400/- the appellant will also be entitled to recover interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. Rest of the award is confirmed. The respondents No.1 to 3 are held jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation to the appellant, as the vehicle is insured with respondent No.3, therefore, it is directed to pay or deposit the enhanced amount within two months, faling which, the appellant will be free to proceed for the recovery of the amount. No order as to costs.