Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 625 (RAJ)

Devi Lal Sharma v. Satnam Singh

2011-03-23

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 23.3.2001 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sambhar Lake, Jaipur (In short MACT in MACT cases No.11/99 (364/95), 10/99 (363/95), 6/99 (359/95), 8/99 (361/95), 2/99 (355/95), 13/99 (366/95), 15/99 (459/95), 12/99 (365/95), 14/99 (367/95), 9/99 (362/95), 16/99 (460/95), they are being disposed by this common judgment. 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 on 31.12.94 deceased persons and injured claimants were traveling in Matador No. RJ 22 C 0573 Haridwar to village Sandiya, Tehsil Sojat Distt. Pali. On 1.1.95 at about 5.30 a.m. as soon as they reached village Nasnoda near Jaipur, a Truck No. HR 02 A 0887 coming from Ajmer, driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit Matador on account of which accident took place injuring many persons and resulted in death of Chellaram, Smt. Kanudi, Pukhraj, Ganpat, Smt. Sundri and Smt. Kamla. 4. The insurance company submitted its written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed issues. The claimants produced their evidence. The insurance company did not produce any evidence. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the MACT decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved against the award dated 23.3.2001, the claimants filed these appeals for enhancement of the compensation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions and the award passed by the MACT and material on record. 6. Since the claimants have filed these appeals only for enhancement of the claim amount, Now I may consider them one by one. 7. It may be mentioned that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1116/2001 against the award dated 23.3.2001 in MACT case No. 3/99 (356/95), modified the award in respect of deceased Kanudi filed by the claimants Mangilal and others and passed the following order on 14.2.2002 : "This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation against an award whereby a sum of Rs. Appeal No. 1116/2001 against the award dated 23.3.2001 in MACT case No. 3/99 (356/95), modified the award in respect of deceased Kanudi filed by the claimants Mangilal and others and passed the following order on 14.2.2002 : "This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation against an award whereby a sum of Rs. 1,11,000 ( Rupees one lac eleven thousand only) has been allowed to the appellants who are the legal representatives of deceased Kanudi who died at the age of 50 years and was earning atleast Rs. 50/- per day by her artistic ability of 'Mehandi' decoration on palms. However, documentary proof in regard to the income of deceased could not be produced and hence the counsel for the appellant fairly accepted the position that Rs. 15000/- per annum should be taken to be her income as per the IInd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But thereafter a multiplier of 13 should have been applied, considering the age of the deceased whereas the multiplier of eight only has been applied since there is no dispute about the age of the deceased that she was 50 years old years and there can possibly be no dispute regarding her income that it cannot be less than Rs. 15000/- per annum out of which, if her personal expenses are deducted Rs. 10,000 will have to be taken as her net income. Thus, her income of Rs. 10,000/- after applying a multiplier of 13 would come to Rs. 1,56,000/-. It also cannot be disputed that the dependents of the deceased would be entitled to this amount. Hence if a sum of Rs. 1,11,000 is deducted from the amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- which has already been paid to the appellant's claimants, the balance of Rs. 45,000/- will have to be paid by the respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited. The same be paid to the appellants expeditiously, but not later than a period of two months from today. The impugned award accordingly stands modified and the appeal is thus allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs." 8. The crux of this matter is that the income per year of the deceased was determined to be 15,000/- as artistic ability of 'Mehandi' decoration on palms. The impugned award accordingly stands modified and the appeal is thus allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs." 8. The crux of this matter is that the income per year of the deceased was determined to be 15,000/- as artistic ability of 'Mehandi' decoration on palms. In case of death l/3rd amount was to be deducted and dependency was determined to be 10,000/- per year The multiplier of 13 was applied in case of death of a 50 year old person. SBCMA 967/2001 9. SBCMA No. 967/2001 has been filed by the claimant Devi Lal for enhancing the compensation. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 62,000/-. The claimant in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 5,85,000/-. It has come on record that his two teeth were broken. He also received fracture of collar bone etc. The claimant produced two different disablement certificate. In disablement certificate dated 8.5.96 it has been stated that he sustained 16% permanent disability. While in certificate dated 23.10.1999 it has been stated that he sustained 24% permanent disability. The claimant produced medicines expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 35/7.50. For receiving injuries in the accident and for permanent disability the MACT granted Rs. 50,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs. 5,000/- were granted. For loss of income on account of injuries the MACT granted Rs. 5,000/-. For special diet the MACT granted Rs. 2,000/-. The co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of common award dated 23.3.2002 determined annual income as Rs. 15,000/-. The claimant sustained 16 % permanent disability and multiplier of 16 was applied. In this manner the appellant was entitled to get Rs. 38,400/-. The insurance Company has not filed any cross objections and since two different disability certificates were produced by the appellant the MACT rightly granted Rs. 50,000/-. I have gone through the findings of the MACT. The findings arrived at by the MACT are just and proper and the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 62,000/- as compensation in all I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. In my opinion there is no need to further award any amount to the claimant. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be dismissed and findings in relation to him arrived at by the MACT deserve to be confirmed. SBCMA 954/2001 10. 62,000/- as compensation in all I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. In my opinion there is no need to further award any amount to the claimant. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be dismissed and findings in relation to him arrived at by the MACT deserve to be confirmed. SBCMA 954/2001 10. SBCMA No. 9.4/2001 has been filed by the claimant Ganpat for enhancing the compensation. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 67,000/-. The claimant in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 7,90,000/-. It has come on record that he received fracture of left leg. The claimant produced two different disablement certificate. In one disablement certificate it has been stated that he sustained 25% permanent disability. While in other certificate i: has been stated that he sustained 43% permanent disability. The claimant produced medicines expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 4319.18. For receiving injuries in the accident and for permanent disability the MACT granted Rs. 50,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs. 5,000/- were granted. For loss of income on account of injuries the MACT granted Rs. 5,000/-. For special diet the MACT granted Rs. 2,000/-. Expenses incurred for going to Hospital etc. Rs. 5,000/- were granted. As per the decision of the Coordinate Bench yearly income of the appellant would be Rs. 15,000/-. After applying the multiplier the amount should have been Rs. 60,000/-. Since two different disability certificates were produced by the appellant the MACT granted Rs. 50,000/-. I have gone through the findings of the MACT. To the disability of 25% the amount would be Rs. 60,000/-. The MACT granted Rs. 50,000/-. In my opinion in this head should be Rs. 60,000/-. The findings arrived at by the MACT are to be modified. The MACT has awarded Rs. 62,000/- as compensation, but it should have been Rs. 72,000/-. Now after enhancing the amount would be Rs. 60,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- and in other heads I am not increasing any amount. The total amount would be Rs. 72,000/-. The impugned award in respect of Ganpat accordingly stands modified and his appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. SBCMA 960/2001 11. SBCMA No. 960/2001 has been filed by the claimants Nemaram and other for enhancing the compensation on account of death of Sundari wife of Bholaram. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 86,800/-. 72,000/-. The impugned award in respect of Ganpat accordingly stands modified and his appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. SBCMA 960/2001 11. SBCMA No. 960/2001 has been filed by the claimants Nemaram and other for enhancing the compensation on account of death of Sundari wife of Bholaram. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 86,800/-. The claimants in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 16,70,000/-. As per the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the common award dated 23.3.2001, I am fixing the income at Rs. 10,000/- after deducting one third amount. Since the age of deceased was 60-65, multiplier of 8 is applied. In this manner the claimants were entitled to Rs. 80,000/- but the MACT awarded Rs. 76,800/-. The compensation awarded should have been Rs. 80,000/-. In other heads. I am not increasing any amount. The total would be Rs. 90,000/-. The impugned award in respect of claimants Nemaram and others for the death of Sundari accordingly stands modified and their appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. .............................................. heads I am not increasing any amount. The total amount would be Rs.1,82,000/-. The impugned award in respect of claimants Narayan Lal @ Gora @ Gorkhram and others for the death of Smt. Kamla accordingly stands modified and their appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. SBCMA 1118/2001 14. SBCMA No. 1118/2001 has been filed by the claimant Saidi @ Sayari for enhancing the compensation. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The claimants in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 8,80,000/-. The right hand of the claimant was imputed on account of the injury received by her in the accident. As per the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the common award dated 23.3.2001, I am fixing the income at Rs. 15,000/- per year. Since the age of Saidi was 30 years, the multiplier of 18 may be applied. The MACT determined her permanent disability to the extent of 80%. In this manner the claimant is entitled to Rs. 2,16,000/- but the MACT awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-. The compensation awarded should have been Rs.2,16,000/-. In other heads I am not increasing any amount. The total amount would be Rs.2,56,000/-. The impugned award in respect of claimant Saidi @ Sayari accordingly stands modified and her appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. SBCMA 961/2001 15. 2,16,000/- but the MACT awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-. The compensation awarded should have been Rs.2,16,000/-. In other heads I am not increasing any amount. The total amount would be Rs.2,56,000/-. The impugned award in respect of claimant Saidi @ Sayari accordingly stands modified and her appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. SBCMA 961/2001 15. SBCMA No. 961/2001 has been filed by the claimant Smt. Babudi for enhancing the compensation. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. The claimant in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 4,90,000/-. The claimant has not produced medicines expenses bill. For receiving injuries in the accident and for permanent disability the MACT granted Rs. 30,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs. 2,000/- were granted. For loss of income on account of injuries the MACT granted Rs. 2,000/-. For special diet the MACT granted Rs. 1,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was granted certificate of 5% permanent disability. The Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of common award dated 23.3.2001 determined annual income as Rs. 15,000/-. The claimant sustained 5 % permanent disability and multiplier of 18 was applied. In this manner the appellant was entitled to get Rs. 13,500/-. The insurance company has not filed any cross objection, thus the amount of Rs. 30,000/-granted by the MACT cannot be considered to be on lower side. I have gone through the findings of the MACT. The findings arrived at by the MACT are just and proper and the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 35,000/- as compensation in all. I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. In my opinion there is no need to further award any amount to the claimant. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be dismissed and findings in relation to her arrived at by the MACT deserve to be confirmed. SBCMA 1115/2001 16. SBCMA No.1115/2001 has been filed by the claimant Smt. Sushila for enhancing the compensation. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs.21,000/-. The claimant in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs.8,90,000/-. The claimant has not produced any evidence to show that she has suffered any permanent disability or is not a position to do work. For receiving injuries in the accident the MACT granted Rs.15,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs.3,000/- were granted. For loss of income on account of injuries the MACT granted Rs. 2,000/-. The claimant has not produced any evidence to show that she has suffered any permanent disability or is not a position to do work. For receiving injuries in the accident the MACT granted Rs.15,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs.3,000/- were granted. For loss of income on account of injuries the MACT granted Rs. 2,000/-. For special diet the MACT granted Rs. 1,000/-. I have gone through the findings of the MACT. The findings arrived at by the MACT are just and proper and the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 21,000/- as compensation in all. I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. In my opinion there is no need to further award any amount to the claimant. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be dismissed and findings in relation to her arrived at by the MACT deserve to be confirmed. SBCMA 1119/2001 17. SBCMA no. 1119/2001 has been filed by the claimant Smt. Kamla for enhancing the compensation. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The claimant in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 4,90,000/-. The claimant has not produced any evidence to show that she has suffered any permanent disability or is not a position to do work. For receiving injuries in the accident the MACT granted Rs. 20,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs. 2,000/- were granted. For loss of income on account of injuries the MACT granted Rs. 2,000/-. For special diet the MACT granted Rs. 1,000/-. I have gone through the findings of the MACT. The findings arrived at by the MACT are just and proper and the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation in all. I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. In my opinion there is no need to further award any amount to the claimant. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be dismissed the findings in relation to her arrived at by the MACT deserve to be confirmed. SBCMA 1139/2001 18. SBCMA No. 1139/2001 has been filed by the claimant Devi Lal son of Meetha Lal Mali for enhancing the compensation. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 42,000/-. The claimant in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 8,75,000/-. For receiving injuries in the accident and for permanent disability the MACT granted Rs. 35,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs. 3,000/- were granted. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 42,000/-. The claimant in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 8,75,000/-. For receiving injuries in the accident and for permanent disability the MACT granted Rs. 35,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs. 3,000/- were granted. For loss of income on account of injuries the MACT granted Rs. 2,000/-. For special diet the MACT granted Rs. 2,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was granted certificate of 12.30 permanent disability. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of common award dated 23.3.2001 determined annual income as Rs. 15,000/-. The claimant sustained 12.30 % permanent disability and multiplier of 17 was applied. In this manner the appellant was entitled to get Rs. 31,500/-. The Insurance company has not filed any cross objections and MACT has rightly granted Rs, 35,000/-. I have gone through the findings of the MACT. The findings arrived at by the MACT are just and proper and the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 42,000/- as compen-sation in all. I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. In my opinion there is no need to further award any amount to the claimant. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be dismissed and findings in relation to him arrived at by the MACT deserve to be confirmed. SBCMA 1113/2001 19. SBCMA No. 1113/2001 has been filed by the claimant Kishore for enhancing the compensation. The MACT has awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,000/-. The claimant in the claim petition claimed amount of Rs. 8,80,000/-. For receiving injuries in the accident the MACT granted Rs. 5,000/-. For treatment etc. Rs. 1,000/- were granted. He has received simple injury. No evidence was produced by him that he has received any permanent disability. I have gone through the findings of the MACT. The findings arrived at by the MACT are just and proper and the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 6,000/- as compensation in all. I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. In my opinion there is no need to further award any amount to the claimant. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be dismissed and findings in relation to him arrived at by the MACT deserves to be confirmed. 20. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, misc. appeals Nos. 1113/2001/2001, 1139/2001, lkll9/2001, 1115/2001, 961/2001, 967/2001 fail and are hereby rejected. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be dismissed and findings in relation to him arrived at by the MACT deserves to be confirmed. 20. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, misc. appeals Nos. 1113/2001/2001, 1139/2001, lkll9/2001, 1115/2001, 961/2001, 967/2001 fail and are hereby rejected. The common award dated 23.3.2001 passed by MACT, Sambharlake, District Jaipur in claim petitions Nos. 11/99 (365/95), 8/99 ,(361/95), 12/99 (365/99), 9/99 (362/95), 16/99 (460/95), 13/99 (366/95) stands confirmed. The award dated 23.3.2001 in MACT cases No. 14/99 (367/95), 15/99 (459/95), " 6/99 (359/95), 10/99 (363/95), 2/99 (355/95) is modified to the extent mentioned above and the SBCMA no. 1118/2001,"" 1114/2001, 960/2001, 954/2001 and 987/2001 are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.