Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 386 (RAJ)

M. Rayappan v. Premkumar

2010-02-17

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2010
Hon'ble HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.—The family member of one Thiru.Rayappan travelled in a mini bus from Marthandam to Mettur on 26.04.1995. The mini-bus proceeded from Marthandam at 7.00 p.m., on 26.04.1995 and met with an accident at 5.00 a.m on 27.04.1995 at a place Rangamalai Kanavai Medu with a tractor. Three minor children of Thiru.Rayappan and Thiru.Rayappan got severe injuries and the wife of Mr.Rayappan died due to the accident. The first respondent is the owner of the mini-bus and the second respondent is the driver of the mini-bus, and the third respondent is the insurer of the mini-bus, and the fourth respondent is the owner of the tractor and the fifth respondent is the driver of the tractor, and the sixth respondent is the insurer of the tractor. 2. The applications were filed claiming compensation for the death of the wife of Mr.Rayappan and also for the injuries suffered by the minor children of Mr.Rayappan. The Tribunal passed a common order, dated 31.03.1997, granting compensation. Mr.Rayappan/appellant herein was aggrieved over the order passed in MCOP.No.33 of 1996 filed by him, claiming compensation for the injury suffered by him and filed the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal he also passed away. 3. In all other cases no appeal is filed. 4. Mr.Rayappan/appellant herein was admitted as in-patient in a hospital and operation was done on 09.05.1995 and plates and screws were inserted for the fracture suffered by him on his right thigh. He was discharged on 20.05.1995. 5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant got examined himself, besides examining two more witnesses and he also marked Exs.A1 to A18. There was no evidence let in by the respondents and no documents were marked. The Tribunal found that both the drivers contributed for the accident and accordingly, fixed the liability on all the respondents. In these circumstances, Rs.25,200/- was awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.1,650/- was awarded for medical expenses. Totally, Rs.26,850/- was awarded with interest at 12% from the date of application and cost. 6. Thus, the 3rd and 6th respondents were directed to pay each 50% of the award amount, being insurance companies. The respondents did not choose to file appeal. The appellant filed the present appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, he died. Two sons and one daughter, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Rayappan, were brought on record. The respondents did not choose to file appeal. The appellant filed the present appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, he died. Two sons and one daughter, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Rayappan, were brought on record. The youngest son is still a minor. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed Rs.6,73,150/- in the appeal, he is confining the claim to the actual medical expenses met by the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,650/- towards medical expenses as seen from Ex.A8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Ex.A8 are various bills, and Rs.13,988.90 was the amount spent towards various bills and those bills do form part of Ex.A-8. But, the Tribunal took only Rs.1,650/- as medical expenses without any basis. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants will be satisfied if the entire amount of Rs.13,988.90 is awarded, instead of awarding a sum of Rs.1,650/- for those bills. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in 2000(IV) CTC 528, The Managing Director, Pandiyan Roadways Corporation, Madurai vs. S.Rajalakshmi and four others, The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appeal is not maintainable after the death of the injured. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the appeal would get abated, as no claim could be made for the personal injuries of a death person. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 10. The Tribunal ordered Rs.1,650/- towards medical expenses, based on Ex.A-8, which reads as follows" xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The above passage extracted in the award makes it clear that the compensation awarded towards medical expenses is based on Ex.A8. As per Ex.A8, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there are totally 11 bills and as per those bills Rs.13,988.90 were spent towards medical expenses. Hence, the Tribunal had erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1,650/- alone for medical expenses. 11. As per Ex.A8, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there are totally 11 bills and as per those bills Rs.13,988.90 were spent towards medical expenses. Hence, the Tribunal had erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1,650/- alone for medical expenses. 11. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in 2000(IV) CTC 528, The Managing Director, Pandiyan Roadways Corporation, Madurai vs. S.Rajalakshmi and four others, and para 10 of the said Judgment is extracted hereunder: "Therefore, I have no other alternative except to allow the appeal in so far as the amount which has been awarded towards personal injuries. The legal representatives of the claimants would be entitled only to be compensated as regards the actual expenses incurred by claimant for his treatment. In this context, in the claim petition, a sum of Rs.18,000/- is claimed towards expenses with reference to medicines and medical charges including for Doctors and for the attenders. Therefore, the respondents herein would be entitled to only a sum of Rs.18,000/-" As per the above judgment and also as per the Ex.A-8, the appellants are entitled to Rs.12,338.90, in addition to Rs.1,650- already awarded. Thus I hold that the respondents are liable to pay Rs.12,338.90 more. The third and sixth respondents are directed to pay equally the aforesaid amount. The appeal is allowed by modifying the award to the extent indicated above. 12. In the result, the respondents 3 and 6 are directed to pay 50% of the enhanced amount of Rs.12,338.90 with 12% interest from the date of application and with proportionate cost. with the above terms, the appeal is disposed of.