Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1879 (RAJ)

GUMAN SINGH v. Gunmala

2009-08-25

GUMAN SINGH

body2009
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—No power has been filed inspite of service of notice on the respondent-Insurance Company in CMA No.35/2000. Mr.P.S.Shukla who is appearing in connected CMA No.210/2000 on behalf of Insurance Company is directed to appear in CMA No.35/2000 also and argue the matter. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. These appeals have been preferred on behalf of injured-appellants Srinath and Peeyush Jalan for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran vide judgment dated 30.9.99 whereby a sum of Rs.33,000/- & Rs.53,000/- was awarded by way of compensation to the injured Srinath and Peeyush Jalan respectively for the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. The challenge in the appeals pertains to quantum of compensation only. C.M.A. No.210/2000 (Claim Case No. 89/1998) 5. Learned counsel for the injuredappellant submits that injured-appellant sustained fracture of Jaw and on account of this injury, he was not in a position to speak and had to undergo pain and sufferings apart from loss of business for six months, resulting in loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income on lower side and has awarded RS.33,000/- by way of lump sum which includes Rs.2000/- for expenses incurred in treatment and that deserves to be enhanced. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. It is further submitted that no proof of sustaining injury has been found on record. 7. On hearing rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the injured was a shop keeper and he has sustained fracture of Jaw and on account of said grievous injury, he could not attend his business properly for quite long period and, as such, a loss of Rs.15,000/- for a period of five months immobilization during treatment may be awarded in addition to what has been awarded by Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, appeal of the injuredappellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the injured-appellant shall get a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 15.12.99, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. 8. Accordingly, appeal of the injuredappellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the injured-appellant shall get a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 15.12.99, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith. C.M.A. No.35/2000 (Claim Case No. 90/1998) 9. Learned counsel for the injuredappellant submits that injured-appellant was a student of second year engineering when he met with an accident and sustained serious injury on spleen which lateron was got removed through operation. The injured was hospitalized for 20 days and on account of this injury, he could not appear in the examination and had to spend lot of money on his treatment which are proved from bills Ex.6 to 28 but the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for treatment. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the period of six months immobilization during treatment. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has already considered the Insurance for future life nd has awarded RS.40,000/- by way of lump sum. It is further submitted that sum of Rs.13,000/-has already been awarded for reimbursement of medical bills during treatment and as such, adequate compensation has been awarded. 11. On hearing rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that injured Peeyush was an student of second year engineering and on account of injury sustained, his spilin had to be removed through operation and he was hospitalized for 20 days and could not appear in the examination, therefore, for the period of immobilization during treatment by the injured, for the period of 5-6 months, Rs.25,000/- deserves to be awarded by way of additional enhanced amount. 12. 12. Accordingly, appeal of the injuredappellant is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the injured-appellant shall get a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 15.12.99, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent forthwith.