Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 539 (RAJ)

Bodanram @ Bondanlal Yadav v. Kishan Lal

2011-03-10

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 19.9.2007 passed by Judge, Motor accident Claims Tribunal (A.D.J. Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar in MACT Case No. 85/2006 (303/2005) for enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The facts in brief are that the claimant was travelling in the jeep bearing No. RJ 02 C 3697 along with Head Constable Mangeram, Constable Banwari Lal, all were going from Police Station Shahjahanpur to Neemrana at night on patrolling. At about 12.12 a.m. when the jeep was passing through near National Highway No.8 Janaksinghpura a Truck bearing registration No. HR 55 B 7071 was driven with great negligently and rashly at very high speed and suddenly the truck hit the jeep from back side in which all the policemen were injured and the petitioner got seriously in the accident. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Shahjahanpur for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC which was registered as FIR No. 1 was driver of the vehicle in question, the respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle, the respondent No.3 was the insurer of the Truck bearing registration No. HR 55 B 7071. At the time of accident the petitioner was working in the police department and due to the accident he got 33.08% permanent disability and he is not in a condition to do work as he was doing before the accident. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed reply to the claim petition in which their main objection is that the accident was held due to his own negligence and they are not liable for the accident. The respondent No.3 filed its reply in which it was mentioned that the said accident was occurred due to his own negligence, besides this the driver of the vehicle had no valid license at the time of the accident and therefore their liability was ended and the claim is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimant petitioner Bodanram was examined as AW-1 and one Banwarilal as AW-2 and he has also produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.118 in support of his claim. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimant petitioner Bodanram was examined as AW-1 and one Banwarilal as AW-2 and he has also produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.118 in support of his claim. The respondents did not submit any document or any evidence against the claim. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties the MACT vide its award dated 19.9.2007 allowed compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,09,624/- to the claimant. Now the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT failed to assess the right amount of compensation as the petitioner was in police department and his salary was Rs. 11,558/- per month but due to accident he was not able to work properly and he has lost the further chances of the promotions as well as increase in the salary. The MACT has assessed his salary as Rs. 9382/- per month while he was getting Rs. 11,558/- per month and spent more than Rs. 1,50,000/- in treatment. Due to accident the claimant sustained various grievous injuries including fracture and has become 30.08% permanent disabled. The MACT awarded a meager amount of compensation i.e. only Rs. 48,000/- by using the multiplier of 8 as compensation. The MACT failed to consider the non-pecuniary damages which were sustained by the claimant due to the accident. The MACT has committed an error in awarding the interest @ 6% p.a. which is on lower side where it ought to have been at least 18% p.m. 8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the award passed by the MACT is just and proper. The findings of the MACT show that on all count the MACT has awarded a sums of Rs. 2,09,624/- which cannot be said to be unjustified. The claimant is not entitled for any further enhancement in the compensation. The interest @ 6% was rightly granted. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be rejected. 9. The findings of the MACT show that on all count the MACT has awarded a sums of Rs. 2,09,624/- which cannot be said to be unjustified. The claimant is not entitled for any further enhancement in the compensation. The interest @ 6% was rightly granted. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be rejected. 9. The MACT on issue No.2 has given the following findings : ^^14- eSaus nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh] i=koyh esa vkbZ lk{; dk foospu fd;kA izkFkhZ cksnujke ds LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k i= izn'kZ 10 ds vuqlkj mldks 33-08 izfr'kr LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk n'kkZbZ xbZ gSA mldk osru izek.k i= izn'kZ 112 is'k gqvk gS] i=koyh esa ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha vkbZ gS fd izkFkhZ iqfyl deZpkjh gksus ds dkj.k vius dk;Z esa vleFkZ gks x;k gks vkSj viuh ukSdjh djus esa vleFkZ gks cfYd ,slk lk{; vkbZ gS fd og ukSdjh yxkrkj dj jgk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks osru ds :i esa fdlh izdkj dk uqdlku dkfjr ugha gqvk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks mldh LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk 33-08 izfr'kr LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk vkbZ gS vkSj mldks viuk nSfud thou dk dk;Z djus esa dfBukbZ vo'; gh gksrh gksxh vkSj ukSdjh ds vykok ?kj dk dk;Z djus esa Hkh mls dfBukbZ vkrh gksxhA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mls 500 :i;s izfrdkg dh nj ls izfrdj jkf'k fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS izkFkhZ mez 57 o"kZ gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 163¼3½ eksVj;ku vf/kfu;e dh f}rh; vuqlwph ds rgr 8 dk xq.kkad dk mi;ksx fy;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ 500x12x8 = 48]000@& :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 15- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mldk vodk'k Loh—r vkns'k izn'kZ 118 is'k gqvk gS & ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ fnukad 12-8- 2004 ls 26 -4-2005 rd :ikUrfjr vodk'k ij rFkk fnukad 27-4- 2005 ls 16 -7-2005 rd mikftZr vodk'k ij jgk gS bl izdkj izkFkhZ dqy 339 fnol :ikUrfjr o mikftZr vodk'k ij jgk gSA vkSj ;g vodk'k izkFkhZ dks nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds dkjk ysuk iM+k] ;fn ;g vodk'k izkFkhZ ugha ysrk rks blds cnys izkFkhZ dks bu vodk'kksa dk udn Hkqxrku dh jkf'k fey tkrhA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks 339 fnol dk osru Hkh fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dk osru izek.k i= izn'kZ 112 is'k gqvk gS ftlds vuqlkj mldk ewy osru 5675] egaxkbZ osru 2838 rFkk egaxkbZ HkÙkk 879 :i;s gS tks dqy 9]392 :i;s gksrk gS bl izdkj izkFkhZ dk ekfld osru 9392 :i;s ekuk tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dk 339 fnol dk osru 1]06]107 :i;s gksrk gS tks izkFkhZ dks fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA 16- izkFkhZ dks esfMdy fjiksVZ izn'kZ 8 is'k gqbZ gS ftlds vuqlkj mlds 'kjhj ij pkj pksVs gS vkSj ,Dl js fjiksVZ izn'kZ 9 ds vuqlkj mlds rhu pksVs xEHkhj iz—fr dh vkbZ gS rFkk ,d pksV lk/kkj.k iz—fr dh gS vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 163¼,½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e dh f}rh; vuwlwph ds rgr izkFhkZ dks rhu xEHkhj pksVksa ds fy, izR;sd xEHkhj pksV ds ikap gtkj :i;s ds fglkc ls 15]000 :i;s rFkk ,d lk/kkj.k pksV ds fy;s 1]000 :i;s fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius bZykt ds nkSjku Ø; dh xbZ nokbZ;ksa ds fcy Hkh is'k fd;s gS] ftuesa of.kZr jkf'k dk ;ksx 39]517 :i;s gksrk gS tks jkf'k Hkh izkFkhZ dks fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS D;ksafd ;g jkf'k izkFkhZ us vius bykt ij [kpZ dh gS bl izdkj izkFkhZ cksnuyky dqy 2]09]624 :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ ,oa mä jkf'k ij Dyse ;kfpdk is'k gksus dh frfFk ls olwyh rd 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA** 10. The MACT as per Section 163(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act determined the dependency compensation on account of 30.08% disability Rs. 500/- per month and since he was 57 year of age multiplier of 8 was applied as per second schedule. In this matter the MACT determined disablement amount Rs. 48,000/-. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjustified. The MACT took into consideration that the claimant gave duty as policeman as usual and only on account of day to day work he suffered disability for that amount of Rs. 48,000/- were awarded to him. 11. The claimant remained on leave for 339 days. The MACT awarded amount of Rs. 1,06,107/- to the claimant for 339 days as per rules. This finding of the MACT also cannot be said to be unjust. The claimant received three grievous injuries for which the MACT granted Rs. 5,000/- each and for a simple injury Rs. 1,000/- was awarded. The claimant produced medicines expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 39,517/-. The same was also awarded by the MACT. In all Rs. 2,09,624/- were awarded to the claimant as compensation. The MACT has also granted 6% interest rightly. The appellant is not entitled for any higher interest rate. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT. The same cannot be said to be unjust. The findings recorded by the MACT on issue No.2 thus deserve to be confirmed. The claimant is not entitled for any further compensation. The appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. 12. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, the misc. appeal No. 907/2008 filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. The award dated 19.9.2007 passed by judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ Fast Track) Behror in MACT Case No. 85/2006 (303/2005) stands confirmed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.