Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2450 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. Hanuman Prasad

2011-11-15

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by claimant-appellant-Babu Lal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation i.e. awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur to the tune of Rs.3,16,891/-, with the prayer to enhance the same to the reasonable sum. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 6.7.1994 at about 8.00 pm, appellant was travelling in the bus bearing No.RJ 14-P-3739 of respondent No.2-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the "RSRTC"), which was being driven by Shri Hanuman Prasad – respondent No.1. When the passengers were stepping down from the bus near Ramgarh Mod, the driver suddenly started the bus, as a result of which, appellant fell down from the stairs of the bus and was crushed under the rear tires of the bus. He thereby sustained grievous injuries on his left leg. His left leg was completely crushed and it had to be amputed from below the knee. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the bus. His left leg was completely amputed from the knee and resultantly, he sustained 75% permanent disability but the learned Tribunal erred in law while awarding only a lump sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the permanent disability of 75%, which is wholly unreasonable and inadequate. Learned Tribunal did so relying on the judgment of this Court rendered in Jitendra Singh @ Jai Singh vs. Islam & Ors. : 1998(2) T.A.C. 110, wherein Rs.3,00,000/- were awarded for disability of 55%, whereas in the present case, permanent disability of the appellant was assessed at 75%. Even if the appellant was a government servant working on the post of Head Constable receiving salary of Rs.3,500/- per month, yet he ought to have been awarded reasonable compensation before he would have to suffer consequence of this disability throughout his life and even after retirement. Learned Tribunal also erred in law in not awarding any amount under the heads of 'pain & suffering' and for 'attendant'. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant at the relevant time was 44 years, computation of compensation should have been made by applying the multiplier of 15 on the structured formula. 4. Learned Tribunal also erred in law in not awarding any amount under the heads of 'pain & suffering' and for 'attendant'. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant at the relevant time was 44 years, computation of compensation should have been made by applying the multiplier of 15 on the structured formula. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent RSRTC has opposed the appeal and has argued that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and it was the sole negligence on the part of appellant-Babu Lal, who was under the state of intoxication and on account of which, accident took place. It happened because three Constables sitting in the bus including injured claimant-Babu Lal, who were under the influence of the liquor. They asked the driver to stop the bus so as to bring the injured i.e. the claimant to the hospital. By the time, bus reached there, accident had already taken place. It was argued that it was the specific case of the RSRTC before the Tribunal that incident did not at all take place from their bus. The bus was being driven in a moderate speed. The driver of the bus i.e. respondent No.1 started the bus only when the passengers landed. Reference has also been made to the site plan Exh.23 to argue that appellant did not receive any injury from the bus. Site plan has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has wrongly awarded interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition. Completion of the proceedings before the Tribunal was delayed by the appellant and therefore claimant-appellant cannot be granted compensation on that basis. It was argued that since the appellant was in a government service being Head Constable in the Police and was receiving salary of Rs.3,500/- per month and would continue to get salary from the government. After superannuation, he would get the retiral benefits, therefore, computation in his case as per the structured formula may not be justified. Tribunal erred in law in not rendering the judgment issue-wise and thus it has failed to properly appreciate the evidence. Appellant failed to prove that he sustained permanent disability of his left leg to the extent of 75%. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the statements of NAW1-Shri Hanuman Prasad - driver respondent No.1, who was eye-witness. Tribunal erred in law in not rendering the judgment issue-wise and thus it has failed to properly appreciate the evidence. Appellant failed to prove that he sustained permanent disability of his left leg to the extent of 75%. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the statements of NAW1-Shri Hanuman Prasad - driver respondent No.1, who was eye-witness. Learned Tribunal wrongly held that the accident took place on account of the negligent driving of the bus driver. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the award. 6. Findings of the learned Tribunal reveal that the bus was stopped by the driver on Ramgarh turn and the passengers were asked to get down and when the appellant was on the last step of the bus and was about to get down, bus driver suddenly started the bus, as a result of which, left leg of the appellant was crushed under the rear tires of the bus and it had to be ultimately amputed from the knee. Learned Tribunal has not accepted the fact that appellant was under the state of intoxication. However, the circumstances that were proved before the Tribunal were such, which clearly indicated that left leg of the appellant had to be amputed on account of the negligent driving of the bus driver. Argument that Tribunal ought to have decided the matter by recording findings issue-wise, does not have any substance. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as lump sum for amputation of leg, additionally awarded amount of Rs.975/- for medical expenses, Rs.2,000/- for transportation charges, Rs.11,616/- towards loss of 134 days of earned leave and Rs.2,000/- for nutritious diet and thus, an award for the total sum of Rs.3,16,891/- was passed however deducting Rs.12,000/- already paid to the appellant towards no fault liability. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in law while not awarding any amount under the heads of 'future prospect', 'pain & suffering' and for 'attendant'. Thus, the award of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability of 75% relying on the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Singh @ Jai Singh supra wherein, claimant sustained 55% permanent disability, may not be justified because permanent disability of the appellant in the present case was assessed at 75% and therefore the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher amount of compensation. 7. 7. Considering all the facts that the appellant was a government servant and there were chances of future increase in his salary for more 16 years and that after retirement, he would get retiral benefits and pension etc. but at the same time keeping in view the fact that nothing has been awarded on the heads of pain & suffering, attendant and future prospect etc., the award of Rs.3,16,891/- cumulatively in all these heads is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. Appellant is held entitled to receive interest at the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,83,109/- @7.5% from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. Appellant shall also be entitled to receive remaining amount of the F.D.R. deposited in terms of the award of the Tribunal. 8. The appeal is thus allowed in part. Record be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.