Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 795 (RAJ)

Durgesh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2011-04-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—All the three misc. appeals arise out of common facts and award, hence same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. All the three misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants-claimants against the award dated 18.5.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track No.1, Dholpur (for short 'the learned Tribunal') by which he passed the following award : In Claim Case No. 46/2004 : Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the claimant-appellant. In Claim Case No. 43/2004 : Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation in favour of appellant-claimant No.3. In Claim Case No. 6/2004 : Rs. 4,05,000/- as compensation to the claimants-appellants. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.6.1998 when the appellants claimants were going in Jeep Make Tracks Town bearing No. RJ-11-C-0197 from Badi to Muraina and they reached near Solanki Petrol Pump ahead from Police Station Saray Chhola, suddenly a truck bearing No. RJ-05-0623 which was being driven rashly and negligently, came and dashed the jeep. The said accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending truck. 4. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants-appellants filed separate claim petitions 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, these three misc. appeals before this Court. Facts in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1562/2004 : 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the compensation has not considered this aspect that due to injuries the appellant has become permanent disabled because of which her progress is marred and it awarded a meager compensation. Because of this injury the appellant will suffer in entire life and learned Tribunal also failed to consider the physical and mental agony in true sense. The tribunal has also failed to consider the non-pecuniary damages which sustained by the appellant due to the incident. The tribunal has not adopted the proper multiplier and also erred in awarding interest @ 9% per annum. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be modified. 6. The tribunal has also failed to consider the non-pecuniary damages which sustained by the appellant due to the incident. The tribunal has not adopted the proper multiplier and also erred in awarding interest @ 9% per annum. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be modified. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the afore-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has considered the entire evidence which is available on record. Before the learned Tribunal, the appellant has failed to submit any certificate regarding her permanent disability. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. Facts in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1569/2004 : 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the compensation has not properly adopted the multiplier system. The learned Tribunal while assessing the dependency has failed to consider the material, which was available before him and also failed to appreciate the evidence, which remained uncontrovert. The learned Tribunal has committed gross illegality by assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month whereas it was the specific case of the claimants that income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per month and in support of this point the claimants submitted income-tax returns filed by the deceased which remained uncontroverted. The learned Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding a meager amount as compensation. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be modified. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the afore-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has considered the entire evidence which is available on record. The claimants appellants have failed to submit any evidence regarding profession of deceased. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. Facts in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1577/2004 : 9. Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the compensation has not properly adopted the multiplier system. The learned Tribunal while assessing the dependency has failed to consider the material, which was available before him and also failed to appreciate the evidence, which remained uncontrovert. Facts in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1577/2004 : 9. Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the compensation has not properly adopted the multiplier system. The learned Tribunal while assessing the dependency has failed to consider the material, which was available before him and also failed to appreciate the evidence, which remained uncontrovert. The learned Tribunal has committed gross illegality by assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month whereas it was the specific case of the claimants that income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per month and in support of this point the claimants submitted income-tax returns filed by the deceased which remained uncontroverted. The learned Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding a meager amount as compensation. The learned Tribunal has committed gross error by deducting 1/3rd from the assessed income of the deceased whereas it should have been as per the unit's formula. Lastly, he submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing in various other heads as claimed by the appellants in their claim petition which ought to have been atleast Rs. 1,00,000/- looking to the present trend of the Courts. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be modified. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the afore-mentio-ned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has considered the entire evidence which is available on record. Thus, the impug-ned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. 11. I have hard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 12. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also after carefully scanning the entire material made available t me, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award after properly considering the evidence submitted by both the parties. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 13. In the result, all the three misc. appeals filed by the appellants claimants are devoid of merits and stands dismissed after conforming the award dated 18.5.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track No.1, Dholpur.