Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 966 (RAJ)

Ruchi Singhal v. Chandrika Prasad

2011-05-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since these two misc. appeals relate to common award dated 10.1.2006 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and Special Court (Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur in MACT Cases Nos. 28/2004 and 24/2008, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Facts in brief are that on 18.11.2011, Kumari Ruchi Singhal and Kumari Suchi Singhal, along with other family members were going from Ajmer towards Jaipur by Car No. RJ 14 5 C 2132. At about 8.10 a.m. when this Car reached near Padasoli, a truck No. UP 78 N 9771 being driven rashly and negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No.1 came from opposite direction and by violating the traffic rules and by coming on the wrong side hit the car. Because of the hit three persons died and claimants sustained serious injuries. 4. The respondent No.1 the driver and respondent No.2 the owner of the truck initially filed their reply to the claim petitions but lateron no one appeared on their behalf and exparte proceedings were drawn against them. The respondent No.3 insurance company of the truck contested the claim and filed its reply. The other claim petitions and the claim petitions filed by the appellants were consolidated and have been decided by the award dated 10.1.2006. 5. The appellants have filed these two appeals for enhancing the compensation awarded by the MACT. The insurance company has not filed any cross-objections and hence the other findings of the MACT in the common award dated 10.1.2006 stand confirmed except the award of compensation, as the appellants prayed for enhancing the same by filing these two appeals. It may also be mentioned that in the common award dated 10.1.2006 in claim case No. 26/2004, the claimants filed appeal and the same was disposed by the order of this Court dated 18.9.2007 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3256/2005. Now I may take up the appeals filed by the appellants one by one. S.B.C.M.A. No. 1978/2006 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the MACT has manifestly erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of permanent disablement, Rs. 1,53,345/- for medicines and Rs. 36,000/- for loss of six months income. Appeal No. 3256/2005. Now I may take up the appeals filed by the appellants one by one. S.B.C.M.A. No. 1978/2006 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the MACT has manifestly erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of permanent disablement, Rs. 1,53,345/- for medicines and Rs. 36,000/- for loss of six months income. The learned counsel has argued that it was proved by unrebutted evidence that the claimant appellant was student. She had completed CA Foundation course and was going MBA Course besides it she also used to earn about Rs. 6,000/- per month. She remained admitted in Neuro Surgery department of SMS Hospital, Jaipur from 18.11.2001 to 23.11.2001. After that she remained admitted in Tongya Hospital from 23.11.2001 to 21.12.2001. Even after discharge from the Hospital her treatment remained continued at home for quite a long period. During the prolonged treatment about a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- were spent under different heads. In these circumstances the learned counsel argued that the compensation awarded should be increased. He has placed reliance on Yadav Kumar vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (MACD 2010 (SC) 217) and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (MACD 2011 (SC) 33). 7. The MACT for the claim case of Kumari Ruchi Singhal while deciding issue No.4, observed as under : ^^izkfFkZ;k dh vksj ls is'k LFkkbZ viaxrk izek.k izn'kz 30 esa izkfFkZ;k ds gSM batjh gksuk crkbZ xbZ gS] mlds psgjs ij dbZ LØsp gS izkfFkZ;k dks dqy 62-5 izfr'kr LFkkbZ viaxrk vkadh xbZ gSA vr% esjh jk; ls izkfFkZ;k dks 1]00]000@& :i;s {kfriwfrZ LFkkbZ fodykaxrk ,oa isu ,.M lQfjax ds fy, mfpr {kfriwfrZ gksxhA izkfFkZ;k :fp flaxy us MkDVjksa dh lykg ij cktkj ls nokbZ;k tfj;s fcy izn'kZ 33 ls 66 o 68 ls izn'kZ 168 jkf'k 1]53]345 :i;s Ø; dh gS tks izkfFkZ;k dks ns; gksrs gSA izkfFkZ;k ds lk{; dk dksZ [k.Mu vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls is'k ughaa gqvk gS blfy, izkfFkZ;k ds lk{; ds vk/kkj ij 6]000 :i;s izfrekg dh vk; V~;w'ku ls gksuk izekf.kr ekurk gwWA LFkkbZ viaxrk izek.k i= izn'kZ 30 ds vuqlkj izkfFkZ;k ds gSM batjh gksus ls 62-5 izfr'kr viaxrk gksuk crk;k x;k gSA ÝsDpj tqMus esa yxHkx 6 ekg dk le; yxrk gS vr% izkfFkZ;k vk; dh {kfr 6x6000 = 36000 :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA 8. I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT and the relevant documents enclosed with the record. The disability certificate Ex.30 has been enclosed showing 62.5% disability of Jaipuriya Hospital. Photostat copies of discharge certificates of SMS Hospital and Tongya Hospital have been enclosed as document Annexures 31 and 32. The medical expenses bills have not been enclosed with the record. The MACT must have looked into the expenses bills etc. enclosed with other files. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for permanent disability and pains etc. and Rs. 1,53,345/- for medical expenses and Rs. 36,000/- have been awarded for loss of income for six months. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. There is no good ground for increasing any compensation on any head. The finding of the MACT for granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,89,345/- to the appellant Ruchi is just and proper. The appeal for enhancing or giving any further compensation deserves to be rejected. S.B.C.M.A. No. 2007/2006 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the MACT has manifestly erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of permanent disablement, and Rs. 10,000/- for medicines total Rs. 25,000/-. The learned counsel has argued that it was proved by unrebutted evidence that the claimant appellant was student. She remained admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur from 22.11.2001 to 24.11.2001 and operated on 23.11.2001. After that she remained admitted in Jyoti Hospital from 29.12.2001 to 30.12.2001. Even after discharge from the Hospital her treatment remained continued at home for quite a long period. During the prolonged treatment about a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- were spent under different heads. In these circumstances the learned counsel argued that the compensation awarded should be increased. He has placed reliance on Yadav Kumar vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance C. Ltd. and Anr. (MACD 2010 (SC) 217 and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (MACD 2011 (SC) 33. 10. 2,00,000/- were spent under different heads. In these circumstances the learned counsel argued that the compensation awarded should be increased. He has placed reliance on Yadav Kumar vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance C. Ltd. and Anr. (MACD 2010 (SC) 217 and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (MACD 2011 (SC) 33. 10. The MACT for the claim case for Kumari Suchi Singhal while deciding issue No.4, observed as under : ^^LFkkbZ viaxrk izek.k i= izn'kZ 24 jktdh; t;iqfj;k vLirky t;iqj }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS ftlesa lwfp fla?ky ds ckbZ Qksj vkeZ dh nksuks gfì;ksa esa ÝsDpj gksuk crk;k x;k gS mls 6-5 izfr'kr LFkkbZ viaxrk gksuk vafdr dh xbZ gSA vr% izkfFkZ;k dks vkbZ LFkkbZ viaxrk ,oa iSu ,.M lQfjax ds fy, 15]000 :i;s mfpr {kfriwfrZ gksxhA izkfFkZ;k us mlds c;ku esa nks yk[k :i;s mlds bZykt esa [kpZ gksuk crk;k gS ijarq blds lEcU/k esa dksbZ nLrkost lk{; is'k ugha fd;k gS ijUrq izkfFkZ;k dk ÝsDpj gksuk izekf.kr gS vkSj mldk ,l-,e-,l- vLirky o T;ksfr vLirky esa bZykt gksuk izekf.kr gSA blfy, esa izkfFkZ;k dks bZykt ds isVs 10]000 :i;s dh {kfriwfrZ mfpr ekurk gwWA izkfFkZ;k us mlds c;ku esa dgk gS fd MkWDVj us mls ,d ekg vkjke djus dh lykg nh FkhA og nks ekg rd pksVksa ds dkj.k Ldwy ugha tk ldhA mlus 10000 :i;s ekgokj ij ?kj ij mls i<+kus ds fy, Vhpj yxk j[kk FkkA ijarq izkfFkZ;k dh vksj ls mlds dFku dh iqf"V esa dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha gqvk gS] u gh izkfFkZ;k us mls i<+kus okys Vhpj dks gh lk{; esa is'k fd;k gSA vr% lk{; ds vHkko esa izkfFkZ;k ds mä dFku dh iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA blfy, bl en esa izkfFkZ;k dksbZ jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA** 11. I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. The MACT has awarded Rs. 15,000/- for permanent disability and pains etc. and Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses. For keeping tutor for study purposes no evidence has been produced and hence no such amount was granted by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. There is no good ground for increasing compensation on any head. The finding of the MACT for granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to appellant Suchi is just and proper. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. There is no good ground for increasing compensation on any head. The finding of the MACT for granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to appellant Suchi is just and proper. The appeal for enhancing or giving any further compensation deserves to be rejected. 12. In view of the above the misc. appeals Nos. 1978/2006 and 2007/2006 filed by claimants appellants for enhancement of compensation in claim cases Nos. 24/2004 and 28/2004 against the award dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and Special Court (Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur being devoid of merit stand rejected. The award stands confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.