Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 30 (RAJ)

Mohd. Bilal v. Hari Prakash

2012-01-02

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2012
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by claimant dissatisfied with award dated 09.10.2003 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota, in MAC Case No.168/1999, by which learned Tribunal has rejected claim petition filed by appellant. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant was a constable in police department and he was travelling in a Jeep No.RJ-20-P-2431, which was being driven by respondent No.2 Rajendra Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. The jeep hit another Jeep, which could not be identified. Learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on two grounds; firstly that in parcha-bayan (Exhibit-1), the appellant has attributed negligence to driver of another jeep, which could not be identified and secondly that the appellant submitted an application before the District Collector under provisions of Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on account of accident by unknown vehicle, which could not be identified, and has already received a sum of Rs.12,500/- as compensation on that account, which is proved from the order of the insurance company Exhibit NA/14 and its Photostat copy Exhibit NA-14A, which is proved by Fateh Chandra Agrawal, the witness of the insurance company. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has also found it proved that the appellant was travelling in vehicle Jeep No.RJ-20-P-2431 but learned Tribunal, solely on the ground that the appellant has received the amount of Rs.12,500/- under the provisions of Section 161 of the Act for default on the part of the unidentified vehicle, has not granted any compensation to the appellant. It is submitted that the permanent disability sustained by the appellant is 22%, which is proved by permanent disability certificate Exhibit-9. The appellant was a constable and the accident was of the year 1998. The accident involved two vehicles and the Tribunal, at the maximum, would be justified in holding it to be a case of composite negligence apportioning the equal liability of both the drivers. The vehicle in which the appellant was travelling was completely exonerated. The appellant was in comma after accident and, therefore, he was not in a position to give parcha bayan (Exhibit-1), which may have been recorded at the instance of any attendants with him. 3. The vehicle in which the appellant was travelling was completely exonerated. The appellant was in comma after accident and, therefore, he was not in a position to give parcha bayan (Exhibit-1), which may have been recorded at the instance of any attendants with him. 3. Learned counsel for respondent has argued that once the appellant has chosen to receive the compensation by recourse of Section 161 of the Act, he cannot be permitted to claim further compensation in the claim case particularly when in parcha bayan (Exhibit-1) the appellant has attributed the negligence to the other vehicle, which could not be identified. Since the appellant was in government service and working as a constable in police department, disability of 22% may not have actually caused loss of income proportionately to that extent and, therefore the award of compensation of Rs.12,500/- already received by him in a case arising out of same accident took place in the year 1998 would be perfectly justified. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It may be a fact that the appellant has received the amount of Rs.12,500/- from the District Collector from the solatium fund under Section 161 of the Act because the other offending vehicle could not be identified, then also the evidence that has been adduced in this case shows involvement of two vehicles, which fact is further fortified from the involvement of vehicle Jeep No.RJ-20-P-2431, in which admittedly the appellant was travelling. It is thus a clear case where two vehicles were involved and therefore looking to the extent of disability and involvement of two vehicles, the award of Rs.12,500/- as compensation cannot be said to be just and reasonable. In the facts of the present case where his permanent disability is proved to be 22% and keeping in view that accident was of the year 1998, additional award of Rs.12,500/- holding the driver of the vehicle Jeep No.RJ-20-P-2431 responsible for the accident, which was insured with the respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, would also be justified. This appeal is therefore allowed accordingly. 5. The appellant is thus held entitled to receive further compensation of Rs.12,500/-. The appellant is also held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. This appeal is therefore allowed accordingly. 5. The appellant is thus held entitled to receive further compensation of Rs.12,500/-. The appellant is also held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its certified copy is produced before respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 6. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.