Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2088 (RAJ)

Har Narain and etc. v. Panchu Lal

2012-10-05

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - These three misc. appeals have been filed by the claimants against the common award dated 11.8.2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge (Fast Track No.2) Tonk in MACT cases Nos. 305/2004 (229/2001) (542/1999), 304/2004 (2761/2001) (468/1998) and 306/2004 (2207/2001) (590/1999), whereby compensation was awarded to the claimants Rs. 7,000/-, Rs. 3,47,200 and Rs. 7,000/- respectively. It would be appropriate for this court to decide all these misc. appeals by this common order. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned common award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Brief facts of the case are on 11.5.1999 at about 11.00 p.m. Ram Pal, Shankar Lal and Har Narain were going in a tractor trolley in order to unload gravel loaded in it. They were travelling as labourers for unloading in the tractor trolley. Respondent No.1 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed because of which it overturned near Chaturapura Ki Nali. Ram Pal, Shanker Lal and Har Narain, sustained serious injuries out of which Ram Pal died. Three claim petitions were filed by the claimants. The driver and the owner of the tractor trolley filed joint reply to the claim petitions. The insurance company of the tractor trolley, respondent No.5 also filed its separate reply. On the basis of the pleadings of both the sides relevant issues were framed by the MACT. After submitting documents and recording statements of the witnesses on hearing arguments of parties, the MACT vide common award dated 11.8.2004 allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation mentioned above. Against the common award all the claimants filed the above three appeals for enhancement of the compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the MACT while deciding issue No.3 in a manner that the driver was not having a valid driving license on the basis that charge under section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was framed against the driver, hence it was presumed that he was not having a valid licence. The insurance company was duty bound to lead cogent evidence in this regard from the record of the RTO or to serve notice on the driver or owner of the tractor trolley to produce driving licence. The insurance company was duty bound to lead cogent evidence in this regard from the record of the RTO or to serve notice on the driver or owner of the tractor trolley to produce driving licence. It was argued that merely on the basis that charge under section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was framed, hence it is presumed that the driver was not having valid driving licence. The learned counsel has further argued that even otherwise it is also settled principle of law that in case of breach of policy condition the insurance company is duty bound to pay compensation to the claimants which it can recover from the owner of the vehicle. The MACT has further erred in exonerating the insurance company on the ground that the deceased was not travelling in the tractor trolley as a labourer relating to agricultural purposes. It has been argued that the claimants proved by unrebutted evidence that they were travelling in the tractor trolley as a labourer for unloading gravel, which undoubtedly has been held to be a work relating to agricultural purposes. No evidence whatsoever was led by the insurance company which could prove that the deceased and the injured were not travelling in the tractor trolley as a labourer for unloading gravel. 5. In SBCMA No.2476/2004, the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the MACT has erred in awarding merely a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the claimant- appellant in a lump sum way. It was proved by unrebutted evidence that the appellant being labourer used to earn Rs. 3000/- per month prior to the accident. He sustained serious injuries all over the body, specially on his leg, knee, elbow and hips. He remained admitted in Hospital for 15-20 days and remained confined to bed for about two months. During the prolonged treatment about a sum of Rs. 5-7 thousand were spent under different heads. Despite the prolonged treatment he feels pain in his hip bone and his working and earning capacity has been reduced considerably. In these circumstances it was prayed that the compensation should be enhanced. 6. In SBCMA No.2471/2004 for the death of Rampal the MACT considered only Rs. 2400/- per month as income and out of it one third was deducted and in this manner only Rs. 1600/- were determined to be dependency. In these circumstances it was prayed that the compensation should be enhanced. 6. In SBCMA No.2471/2004 for the death of Rampal the MACT considered only Rs. 2400/- per month as income and out of it one third was deducted and in this manner only Rs. 1600/- were determined to be dependency. The learned counsel has argued that by unrebutted evidence since deceased Rampal was doing cultivating work and labour work he used to earn about 8-10 thousand per month. He was the only earning member of the family and used to contribute a large part of his income towards the family members. Because of untimely death the claimants have been deprived of his love, affection and care but also from his economic and future economic contribution. In these circumstances it was prayed that the compensation may be enhanced. 7. In SBCMA No.2526/2004, the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the MACT has erred in awarding merely a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the claimant- appellant in a lump sum way. It was proved by unrebutted evidence that the appellant being labourer used to earn Rs. 3000/- per month prior to the accident. He sustained serious injuries all over the body, specially his teeth and left leg were broken and there was an injury in his knee. He remained admitted in Hospital and his treatment remained continued at home for quite a long period. About a sum of Rs. 20,000/- were spent under different heads of treatment. Because of the injuries his working and earning capacity has been reduced considerably. In these circumstances it was prayed that the compensation should be enhanced. 8. On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Vijay, appearing for the insurance company has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and has argued that the MACT have decided all the four issues after due appreciation of the evidence and the documents submitted by both the parties. The award is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award passed by the MACT. The award is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award passed by the MACT. On issue No.3 the MACT observed as under : " bl fook|d dks izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj vizkFkhZ la0 3 ij gSA vizkFkhZ la0 3 dh vksj ls bl fook|d ds leFkZu esa ,u0,0M0 1 ih0,e0 cklsM+k us lk{; esa c;ku fd;k gS ikWfylh dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj pkyd ds ikl oS| ,oa izHkkoh ykblsUl gksuk t:jh gSA bl Vs~DVj nq?kZVuk esa okgu pkyd ikpawyky ds ikl M~kbZfoax ykbZlsUl ugha Fkk ftldh iqf"V pktZ'khV esa /kkjk 3@181 ,eoh ,DV ds rgr fd, x, pkyku ls gksrh gSA ,u0,0M0 1 cklsM+k us lk{; esa Li"V c;ku fd;k gS nq?kZVuk ds le; ikapwyky ds ikl pkyd vuqKk i= ugha FkkA ,oa mlh ds vk/kkj ij ikapwyky ds fo:) /kkjk 3@181 ,eoh ,DV ds vUrxZr vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ 2 vkjksi i= Lo;a izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls iznf'kZr djk;k x;k gSA ,0M0 1 NksVh us Hkh ftjg esa bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ikapw ds ikl Vs~DVj pykus dk ykbZlsUl ugha FkkA bl xokg us izfrijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd ikapw ds ikl Vs~DVj pykus dk ykbZlsUl ugha FkkA bl izdkj i=koyh ij vkbZ lk{; ls ;g rF; izekf.kr gksrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ykbZlsUl ugha FkkA vr% ;g fook|d vizkFkhZ la0 3 ds i{k rFkk izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) rd fd;k tkrk gSA " 10. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on issue No.3. Chhoti AW.1 in her cross examination admitted that Panchhu, driver of the tractor trolley was not having a valid and effective licence. The issue No.3 was rightly decided in favour of the insurance company and against the claimants. 11. The insurance company raised objection regarding liability of the insurance company. The insurance company on the basis of the FIR and the pleadings have been able to prove that the deceased and the injured were not working as agriculturist and they were merely travellers and in view of the various judgments discussed in the award the MACT exempted the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded in the claim cases. The insurance company on the basis of the FIR and the pleadings have been able to prove that the deceased and the injured were not working as agriculturist and they were merely travellers and in view of the various judgments discussed in the award the MACT exempted the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded in the claim cases. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT regarding liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation. The MACT has rightly exonerated the insurance company to pay the compensation. 12. For the death of Rampal, the MACT looking to the fact that he was agriculturist his income was assessed to be Rs. 2400/- per month and out of it one third was deducted and in this manner looking to his age multiplier of 16 was used. In this manner the MACT assessed the computation in relation to income Rs. 3,07,200/-. For the loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- were awarded to the wife. For love and affection of children Rs. 25,000/- were awarded to the children. For funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In this manner a sum of Rs. 3,47,000/- were awarded to the claimants. This amount further cannot be enhanced looking to the facts of this case. 13. In relation to injured Harinarain, the MACT observed as under : " i=koyh ij vkbZ lk{; ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls bykt ds fcy ,oa fpfdRldh; ifpZ;k izLrqr ugha dh x;h gS] u gh izkFkhZ us fpfdRlky; esa HkrhZ jgus dk dksbZ izek.k gh izLrqr fd;k gS pksVizfrosnu izn'kZ 1 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ ds 4 pksVsa lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh uhyxw ,oa [kjkspuqek NkVus ,oa iSj rFkk maxyh ij dkfjr gqbZ gSA vr% izkFkhZ ds 'kjhj ij dkfjr 4 lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh pksVksa dks ns[krs gq, ,d eq'r 7]000@& :i;s v{kjs lkr gtkj :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k fnyk;k tkuk mfpr ik;k tkrk gS A " I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence. In my view there is no need to enhance the compensation amount in the case of Harinarain in SBCMA No.2476/2004. 14. In my view there is no need to enhance the compensation amount in the case of Harinarain in SBCMA No.2476/2004. 14. In relation to injured Shanker Lal the MACT observed as under : " i=koyh ij vkbZ lk{; ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ 'kadj ds pksV izfrosnu izn'kZ 1 ds vuqlkj 4 pksVsa lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh flj] ?kqVus ,oa iSj ij dkfjr gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ ds dksbZ vfLFk Hkax dh pksV ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls bykt ds fcy ,oa fpfdRldh; ifpZ;ka izLrqr ugha dh x;h gS] ugha fpfdRlky; esa HkrhZ jgus dk dksbZ izek.k vFkok vfHkys[k gh izLrqr fd;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ 'kadj ds 'kjhj ij dkfjr pkj lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh pksVksa dks ns[krs gq, fpfdRlk fcyksa ds vHkko esa lkekU; iztk ds vk/kkj ij ,d eq'r 7]000 :i;s v{kjs lkr gtkj :i;s dh jkf'k crkSj {kfriwfrZ fnyk;k tkuk mfpr ik;k tkrk gS A " I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence. In my view there is no need to enhance the compensation amount in the case of Shanker lal in SBCMA No.2526/2004. 15. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the award passed by the MACT and after due appreciation of the evidence, I do not think it proper to allow the misc. appeals filed by the claimants and all the appeals deserve to be rejected. 16. With the above observations, all the three appeals being devoid of merit stand rejected. The award dated 11.8.2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge (Fast Track No.2) Tonk in MACT cases Nos. 305/2004 (229/2001) (542/1999), 304/2004 (2761/2001) (468/1998) and 306/2004 (2207/2001) (590/1999), whereby compensation was awarded to the claimants Rs. 7,000/-, Rs. 3,47,200 and Rs. 7,000/- respectively stand confirmed.Appeals dismissed. *******