Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 420 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal Sachdeo & Anr v. Ram Kishore Bairwa

2011-02-24

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants against the Judgment/award dated 25-11-2000 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'learned Tribunal') in claim case No. 1974/1999 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 2,81,000/- to the claimants appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that claimant appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal in respect of compensation stating therein that on 16-6-1999 at about 4-4:30 p.m. Mr. Bhawani Sachdeo was going on his scooter No. RJ/14/24/M/6826 from Jaipur towards Bassi. He was going with moderate speed on the correct side of the road. When he reached in front of menter farm in Kanota, a Maruti Van No. RJ-14-3C-6308 being driven rashly and negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No.1 came from opposite direction and in the process of overtaking, a truck came on the wrong side and hit the scooter of Bhawani Sachdeo. Because of the hit, the scooter was totally damaged and Bhawani Sachdeo sustained serious injuries. He was taken to SMS Hospital, where he remained under treatment up-to 27-6-1999 but he could not survive, and died. 3. Reply to the claim petition was filed. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues. 4. The learned tribunal after considering the evidence produced by the parties, passed the impugned award. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant claimant submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not considered the statements of the witnesses. At the time of the alleged accident the age of the deceased was 23 years and at that time the age of the claimants appellants i.e. father and mother were 45 and 48 years respectively. The multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the statements of AD1 Shankar Lal and AD No.2 Jai Kishan is not correct. He submits that on the basis of issue No. 4, the amount of compensation be enhanced. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award after properly assessing the statements of the witnesses. He has drawn attention of the Court to the statement of AW1 Shankar Lal. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award after properly assessing the statements of the witnesses. He has drawn attention of the Court to the statement of AW1 Shankar Lal. He has stated that at the time of alleged incident he was 51 years of age. Lastly, he submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded the award after proper considering the issue No. 4. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. 7. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case and the material made available to me as in my considered view, the learned tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/award has considered each and every aspect of the matter and need no interference of this Court. 8. In the result, this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed and the Judgment/award dated 25-11-2000 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim case No. 1974/1999 is confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******