Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 557 (RAJ)

Prahlad v. Mahaveer Prasad

2011-03-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This civil misc. appeal u/Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is preferred against the judgment and award dated 4.6.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, A.D.J. (F.T.) No.2, Tonk, in Claim Case No. 253/2008 (158/2006) "Prahlad vs. Mahaveer Prasad & Ors." whereby a total claim of Rs. 30,666/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant and against the Insurance Company along with interest of 6% per annum from 1.3.2006 till payment is made. 2. The facts in brief are that on 11.9.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., appellant Prahlad along with Ram Bharat were going towards Uniyara by Motor Cycle on the right side of the road. When they reached near village Bhojpura, P.S. Nagarfort, a Jeep No. RJ-26-TA-0020 being driven rashly and negligently with excessive speed coming from opposite direction from the wrong side violating the traffic rules, hit the Motor cycle. In the accident, both received injuries. 3. An F.I.R. to this effect was lodged. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the appellant claimant before the learned Tribunal, Tonk. Notices were issued. After service, reply was filed on behalf of the insu-rance company. After scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Tribunal had passed the aforesaid award dt.4.6.2008, against which, this civil misc. appeal has been filed in claim case No. 253/2008 (158/2006). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 3,000/- to the claimant appellant for Medical expenses, Transport and special diet and 7,666/- towards physical and mental agony and earning capacity which should be enhanced. 5. He has further drawn attention of this Court that the income of the appellant was not calculated in the light of the ratio decided in the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Laxmi Devi & Ors. vs. Mohd. Tabbar" reported in 2008 RAR (SC) 193. Hence, the award be modified and amount be enhanced. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel, has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.3, insurance company. 7. He has contended that the appellant has not submitted any medical certificate or any document which could prove that he has spent Rs. 50-60 thousand towards this head. As also, the appellant has not submitted any evidence regarding special diet stated to be taken by him during the course of treatment. 7. He has contended that the appellant has not submitted any medical certificate or any document which could prove that he has spent Rs. 50-60 thousand towards this head. As also, the appellant has not submitted any evidence regarding special diet stated to be taken by him during the course of treatment. No document or evidence was submitted which could prove that the appellant could not go on work for at least six months as he remained bed ridden in this period. He has not submitted any documentary evidence regarding his income and as such the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 1898/- and as such mislead the Court in every corner. Hence, the appeal of the appellant be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 9. The appellant claimant has not submitted any evidence regarding his proof of income nor has submitted any evidence regarding physical and mental agony as well as loss in earning capacity. And as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly assumed the income of Prahlad as Rs. 1,898/- per month. He has also not submitted any certificate of not attending his job for at least six months and remained bed ridden for this period. he has also failed to submit any evidence regarding the expenses incurred towards medical expenses and transportation. 10. The appellant claimant Prahlad suffered with 12% permanent disability. In the claim he has mentioned his age as 52 years. However, no certificate to this effect has been filed. In Ex.17, injury report, age of Prahlad was shown as 65 years. In the permanent disability certificate (Ex.18), age of Prahlad is shown as 67 years. In this scenario, the learned Tribunal assuming the age of the claimant Prahlad above 60 years, used the multiplier of 5 which in my view rightly so as to no evidence regarding income and age was produced. 11. In view of the above discussion, I find that the award is just and proper and find no ground for enhancement of the award. 12. Accordingly, the civil misc. appeal stands dismissed. The award dated 4.6.2008 is hereby confirmed.