Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2030 (RAJ)

Anita Bai @ Mamta Bai v. Banshi Lal

2011-09-20

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—For stated reasons, delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly allowed. 2. The claimant-appellant has also filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for deleting the condition for submitting security by the respondent owner prior to disbursement of the award. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that imposition of aforesaid condition of furnishing security by the owner of the offending vehicle, is illegal. 3. Similar issue has been considered by coordinate benches of this Court in Smt. Rama and Balwant Singh, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.71/2006, Banwari Lal vs. Gopi Ram, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.481/2000 (sic 481/2005) = RLW 2005-06 (Suppl.) Raj. 122, Sheoji Ram Mali vs. The Judge, ADJ (F.T.) No.2, Jaipur City and Others, Kumari Nargis vs. Karan Singh and Others, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.356/2005 decided on 22.08.2006, Balveer Singh vs. Yogendra Singh and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3268/2006, decided on 18.07.2008 and Mewa and Another vs. Mohd. Rafique and Others – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10357/2008, decided on 07.10.2009, wherein it has been held that imposition of such a condition is unjustified and therefore the same was waived. 4. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments, I find myself in agreement with the view taken therein. The condition of making payment of compensation to the claimant to depend upon the factum of security being furnished by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident can neither b e said to be justified nor reasonable. 5. In the result, the application for deletion of condition for submitting security is allowed. The condition for submitting security by the owner of the offending vehicle prior to disbursement of the awarded amount is deleted and it is directed that the amount of compensation shall be forthwith released to the claimant. 6. Application for early listing of the case is also disposed of, as with consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard and being decided finally. 7. Claimant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation, being aggrtieved by the award dated 20.07.2007 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aklera, District Jhalawar, in Claim Case No.98/2006. 8. 7. Claimant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation, being aggrtieved by the award dated 20.07.2007 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aklera, District Jhalawar, in Claim Case No.98/2006. 8. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in respect of an accident, which took place on 21.06.2005, claimant-appellant filed a claim petition before learned Tribunal, which came to be decided by the impugned award whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.64,000/- in favour of the claimant under different heads. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16, which, looking to the age of the claimant at the time of accident, is justified. The appellant suffered 25% permanent disability. The Tribunal has determined the income of the claimant at Rs.15000/- per annum. Looking to the evidence and the documents produced by the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly determined his income at Rs.15,000/- and applied the multiplier of 16 and keeping in view 25% permanent disability, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.64,000/-, which includes the award of Rs.4000/- towards medical expenses and mental and physical agony, and I do not find any illegality therein. Therefore the appeal of the appellant for enhancement of the compensation, is dismissed.