Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 661 (RAJ)

Satveer v. Narendra Prasad

2011-03-29

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 28.7.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1. Bharatpur (for short `the learned Tribunal') in claim case No. 460/2004 by which he allowed the claim petition partly. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.4.2000 the appellant was coming from his office to home and at around 6.00 p.m. in the evening he was on his side, suddenly a Marshal Jeep No.RJ-05-C-2295 which was driven by respon-dent No. 2 Dinesh Kumar in a very negligent manner on national high way No. 11 near cold storage Rampura, the appellant was hit by the above mentioned Jeep in a very negligent way and due to which the appellant suffered grievous injuries on his body including fracture in right hand and right leg. 3. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimant appellant filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. Evidence was submitted from both the sides. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the learned tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal awarded the compensation on a very low side. The issue No. 2 has been framed by the learned tribunal against the principles of law and evidence on record. The learned tribunal has erred in only awarding Rs. 30,000/- for the 11% permanent disability incurred by the appellant and no reasoning has been given by the tribunal for awarding a less amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the head of disability. The learned tribunal had not considered the future loss of income due to permanent disability. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal be modified. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the learned tribunal has passed the impugned award after considering the evidence submitted by both the parties. The learned tribunal has awarded sufficient amount of compensation in the head of medical treatment and other heads. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 6. The learned tribunal has awarded sufficient amount of compensation in the head of medical treatment and other heads. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 6. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also after carefully scanning the entire material made available to me, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 7. In the result, this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed after confirming the award dated 28.3.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No . 1 Bharatpur in claim case No. 460/2004.