Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 202 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. Hari Singh

2008-01-23

MANAK MOHTA

body2008
Judgment Manak Mohta, J.—The present appeal has been filed by claimant against the judgment and Award dt. 07.07.1994 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in MACT Claim Case No. 517/1989 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (towards compensation for injuries on person) and Rs. 1000/- (towards damages caused to car)= total Rs. 26,000/- and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The earlier paid amount under the head of ‘no fault liability’ was ordered to be adjusted from the final award. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 16.08.1994 in the day hours at around 3.30 p.m. the claimant was going by his car No. RNY-5153 towards village Punavali via Gogunda-Ranakpur road in a normal speed and on his correct side. At that time, near Sumer Singh’s house, a jeep belonging to Agriculture Department, Udaipur bearing No. RNI-9188, which was coming from the side of Gogunda and was being driven by its driver-Hari Singh in high speed, rash and negligent manner collided with his car, due to which, the claimant sustained injuries on his left shoulder, leg and chest and the car got crushed in the said accident. A sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- was claimed as compensation under different heads. 3. A reply to the claim petition was submitted by Hari Singh-driver of jeep, in which he stated that the accident took place because of fault on the part of car driver himself. In fact, the car was being driven speedily and on account of lack of experience on driving, the car driver could not control his car. Further the claim was stated to be highly exorbitant. 4. A reply to the claim petition was also submitted by the Agriculture Department i.e. the respondents No.2 and 3 in which the fault was stated to be of the car driver. It was stated that the driver of car was not having a valid driving licence, thus, he too was relatively negligent. The amount claimed was stated to be without any basis and incorrect. Further an estimated loss/damage to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was stated to have been caused to jeep as per the estimate given by Motor Garage. 5. It was stated that the driver of car was not having a valid driving licence, thus, he too was relatively negligent. The amount claimed was stated to be without any basis and incorrect. Further an estimated loss/damage to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was stated to have been caused to jeep as per the estimate given by Motor Garage. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues as under:- ß1- vk;k fnukad 16-08-1989 dks foi{kh ua- 1 Jh gfjflag ds }kjk okgu la[;k vkj-,u-th- 9188 dks xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k Jh jkeyky nq?kZVukxzLr gqvk vkSj mlds Ókjhj ij lk/kkj.k o xaHkhj pksVs igqaph\ 2- vk;k izkFkhZ Dyse esa crkbZ xbZ jkfÓk :i;k 3]25]000-00 ;k vU; dksbZ jkfÓk izfrdj esa foi{khx.k ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka rks fdruh o fdl fdl ls\ 3- vk;k foi{kh ua- 2&3 ds }kjk tokc nkos esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh ua- 2&3 dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugh gS\ 4- nknjlhAÞ 6. During trial statements of AW-1 Ram Lal, AW-2 Sumer Singh, AW-2 Prithviraj were recorded from the side of claimant and got exhibited Ex.1 charge-sheet, Ex-2 Naksha Mauka, Ex.3 Injury report, Ex.4 X-ray report, Ex.5 disability certificate showing 15% permanent disability, Ex.6 FIR, Ex.7 to 9 photographs of accident, Ex.10 driving licence of Ram Lal, Exs.11 to 13 quotation of items to be purchased for repairing car, Exs.16 and 18 to 39 prescription slips, Exs.17 and 20 to 36 medical bills and Ex.40 X-ray plate. In defence, statements of NAW-1 Hari Singh, NAW-2 Dr. Dheemawat and NAW-3 Ram Singh Ram were got recorded. 7. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides, vide judgmnet and Award dt. 07.07.1994 held that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep No.RNI-9188 of Agriculture Department and accordingly the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 26,000/- (inclusive of the amount awarded under the ‘no fault liability’) as the compensation plus interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 8. The claimant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the meager amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 9. 8. The claimant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the meager amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 9. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has given an erroneous finding with regard to quantum of compensation and that requires modification. It was well established before the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. RNI-9188 and in that accident the appellant-claimant sustained injuries on his left shoulder, leg and chest and he remained hospitalized for quite long time. It was submitted that due to plaster on his leg he remained confined to bed for more than four months and was unable to perform his daily work as usual throughout his life because of that sole injury, later on it was observed and opined by the team of doctors that due to the injuries on the person, the appellant has suffered 15% permanent disability. It was also submitted that for treatment he had to visit doctors for check-up and advise again and again and on that count he incurred heavy expenses. It was also stated that the claimant at the time of accident was a young boy of 28 years age and was doing the job of goldsmith and was running a jewellary shop and he was having a good earning out of that but due to the accident, he could not run his shop/business and in future also he could not freely sit and work for long time. Since the work of goldsmith in which he was engaged requires extensive sitting and that being a fine and hard work and as it was virtually impossible for the claimant to sit that is why he has been totally deprived of earning from his job, as such, looking to his age proper, adequate and reasonable compensation ought to have been awarded but the learned Tribunal without assessing the loss properly in its right perspective under each head, has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- a very meager amount for the bodily injury, that deserves to be set aside and may be enhanced adequately and reasonably. 25,000/- a very meager amount for the bodily injury, that deserves to be set aside and may be enhanced adequately and reasonably. 10.Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant drew my attention towards the statement of claimant and the other materials with regard to the bodily injury, the relevant medical papers and prescriptions, bills of medicines etc. and on that basis it was submitted that the appellant incurred a lot of expenditure of more than Rs.20,000/- for medical expenses and a loss of Rs.6,000/- towards earning. It was also stated that the appellant was also getting earning through agriculture, however, on account of accident, he could not supervise the agricultural work, thus he also suffered a loss in that respect and because of permanent disability he is not in a position to discharge his routine work as usual and on that basis he claimed Rs.2 lacs and it was stated that the amount was not excessive, however, the learned Tribunal has not properly considered and assessed the loss caused to him and only awarded Rs.25,000/- towards the bodily injuries, that needs to be enhanced. 11.It was further submitted that in that accident the car of the appellant was extensively damaged and as per the assessment of damage given by Expert Mistry, the damage was quantified about Rs.60,000/- and quotation of spares and auto-parts etc., was produced as Exs.11 to 13 before the learned Tribunal but the learned Tribunal merely on the basis that no actual receipt of repairing has been produced, has lightly brushed aside that material. It was urged that learned Tribunal was expected to determine the loss caused on account of damage to car. The appellant specifically took the plea that because of lack of funds he could not carry out the repairs of car thus the non-production of receipt of repairs could not be the basis for rejecting this claim on this head. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1000/- against the damages of the car. The appellant specifically took the plea that because of lack of funds he could not carry out the repairs of car thus the non-production of receipt of repairs could not be the basis for rejecting this claim on this head. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1000/- against the damages of the car. It was urged that the said amount is quite negligible, therefore, it was urged that on the basis of the material available on record and there being no rebuttal of that evidence, there was no ground for the learned Tribunal to have disbelieve the testimony of the appellant and other witnesses as well as the documentary evidence produced in this respect but the learned Tribunal has over-looked all these aspects of the matter and has erroneously ignored the claim of the appellant to that extent. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Heera Bai & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors, reported in 2008 R.A.R. 104 (C) Raj. and again stressed on the point that the production of receipt of actual payment made towards repairs was not necessary nor it was condition precedent for claiming damages. On the basis of these submissions, it was urged that reasonable and adequate compensation may be awarded and quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of damages to car be enhanced reasonably and the appeal may be allowed. 12.On the contrary learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal and submitted that looking to the nature of injuries the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded sufficient amount under that head. Further it was contended that the appellant has merely produced the estimate of repairs and it has not been proved expenditure incurred by him in repairing the car. Thus, in this way, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded damages for the car and it was prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 13.I have considered the rival contention of both the sides and have perused the findings and conclusions drawn thereon and have also gone through the record of the case. Thus, in this way, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded damages for the car and it was prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 13.I have considered the rival contention of both the sides and have perused the findings and conclusions drawn thereon and have also gone through the record of the case. Now the question that remains for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal on the basis of the bodily injury sustained by the appellant and the damage caused to the car has adequately been awarded compensation or not and whether that awarded amount requires to be enhanced? 14.So far as the finding with regard to the happening of the accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal has dealt with the concerned evidence and found that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of said jeep by its driver Hari Singh. The finding of the learned Tribunal is corroborated by the investigation report submitted by the police wherein challan has been filed against Hari Singh for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. Thus, the finding on issue No.1 arrived at by the learned Tribunal is correct and requires to be maintained and further that has not been disputed during the course of arguments by the opposite side. 15.The main contentions of the appellant are with regard to quantum of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal. In this respect I have perused the statements of witnesses and the material available on record. The appellant-claimant as AW-1 has stated in detail about the injuries caused to him and has stated the details about the expenditure incurred by him in treatment. I have also perused the documentary evidence in that respect. 16.Looking to the fact that the appellant has suffered injuries on his shoulder, left leg and chest and those injuries find corroboration by the medical evidence i.e. the injury report (Ex.3). It is further corroborated by the documentary evidence that the appellant sustained fracture on his left leg and he remained confined to bed for nearly four months and during that period he was not in a position to sit and work. Further on the basis of the injury report (Ex.3) after check-up the doctors have issued the Disability Certificate (Ex.5) wherein 15% permanent disability has been shown. Further on the basis of the injury report (Ex.3) after check-up the doctors have issued the Disability Certificate (Ex.5) wherein 15% permanent disability has been shown. The appellant has stated that for treatment and further check-up he had to time and again visit hospital and doctors and in that respect he has incurred heavy expenses on travelling. Taking into account the severity of the injuries, the age of the claimant and taking into consideration the fact that he is unable to perform his job of goodsmith (sic goldsmith), reasonable amount of compensation ought to have been awarded. Admittedly, the appellant has suffered a lot but the learned Tribunal without properly considering all these aspects of the matter has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- only, which to my mind is not just and reasonable. The doctors has certified 15% permanent disability. Looking to the age of the claimant that being 28 years at the time of the accident, it can easily be inferred that for the whole of the life he has to suffer the pain and agony of disablement and due to disability his working efficiency and earning capacity both have been adversely affected. For performing the work of goodsmith (sic goldsmith) sitting on floor and doing manual hard work is the basic necessity. Thus, taking into account all these aspects, in the fitness of things, the lump sum compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under this Rs.25,000/- is accordingly modified and is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- that is found just and reasonable. Further the learned Tribunal has awarded only a meager amount of Rs.1000/- towards the damages caused to car. The appellant has produced estimate of repairing of car. Admittedly these damages were caused to the car due to the said accident. It was proved by his own statement as well as from the other witnesses and the material placed in this respect on record. To my mind, the learned Tribunal was under an obligation to assess the actual damages caused to the car and for that it was not necessary that the vehicle should have been got repaired prior to filing of claim petition and he should have produced the receipt thereof. This conclusion is supported by the authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Smt. Heera Bai (supra). This conclusion is supported by the authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Smt. Heera Bai (supra). Though sufficient material was available on record in the form of quotation of items to be purchased for repairing of car (Exs.11 to 13) but the learned Tribunal has not appreciated in right perspective. Thus, in this respect the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence produced on behalf of the claimant. Further, I have also perused that statement given by the witness in defence. On the basis of the overall consideration, I have come to the conclusion that at least damages of Rs.25,000/- should have been caused to the car in the said accident. Thus, the appellant is entitled to recover that amount from the opposite party. In this way the awarded amount is required to be modified and instead of Rs.1000/-, a total sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under this head. 17.Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is set aside and is modified to this extent that instead of awarded compensation of Rs.26,000, it is enhanced by Rs.49,000/-, thus, the total comes to Rs.75,000/- (inclusive of the amount, if any, paid under the head of no fault liability). The amount of compensation is recoverable from the respondents jointly and severally. Further the claimant will be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation on the enhanced amount. Rest of the judgment and Award is confirmed. No order as to costs.