Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 323 (RAJ)

Shankerlal v. Jagdish Chandra

2012-02-07

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement against the award dated 22.4.2002 passed in MAC No. 1133/1996. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on he became injured in an accident when he was going on Luna No. RNE 5319 from his house of Gandhi Nagar on 29.11.1995. At about 11.00 am, when he reached at High Court Circle and was crossing the circle, a Bus No. RJ-02/P-0521, came from the side of Rambagh Circle in a very fast speed driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, hit the luna on rear side. The present appellant received serious injuries and cauring fracture on left thigh bone, right pelvis bone, left fore-arm in radius and ulna bones and he remained hospitalized for nearly 1-1/2 months and his permanent disability was measured at 23.73%. He filed a claim petition but the learned Tribunal has assessed compensation amount only of Rs. 1,06,000/-, which was further reduced by 50% as the learned Tribunal has held that the present appellant was also negligent and had contributed in the accident. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material record specially the impugned judgment and award. 4. The contention of the present appellant is that when he was crossing the circle, the bus hit him being driven on a high speed and he could not stop and bus ran away and stopped after 150-200 ft., which shows that it was the complete negligence of the bus driver and the learned Tribunal has not taken note of the fact that it was the bus driver only who was responsible for the said accident. 5. It has also been submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 30,000/- for two fractures, which is very low and Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disability, whereas his movements have been restricted and left leg was shortened by 1 inch. He could not resume his duties for two years but the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of salary and only Rs. 8,000/- have been awarded in lieu of medical bills and interest has also been awarded on lower side. 6. He could not resume his duties for two years but the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of salary and only Rs. 8,000/- have been awarded in lieu of medical bills and interest has also been awarded on lower side. 6. The evidence produced before the learned Tribunal goes to show that the present appellant was going from High Court Circle to Gandhi Nagar and he himself has stated that he was crossing the circle and he was going in the middle of the road and taking note of these facts, learned Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the present appellant was negligent in driving his Luna and he has contributed towards the incident and hence 50% liability has rightly been assessed. 7. It was stated that Rs. 30,000/- have been awarded for two fractures, which are on lower side but looking to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act for a fracture only Rs. 5,000/- should have been awarded and hence there is no need to enhance the compensation, rather, it is on higher side. Same is the position with reference to the injuries, which have been termed as simple. 8. It has further been stated that for permanent disability, a meager amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded but looking to the fact that the learned Tribunal has already awarded much higher amount for the grievous and simple injuries, there is no need to interfere about the award, which is given for the permanent disability. 9. It was stated that the present appellant remained hospitalised for about 1-1/2 month, but looking to loss of income, Rs. 5,000/- has already been awarded and further Rs. 10,000/- have been awarded for his diet and transportation. The bills, which were submitted before the Tribunal, have also rightly been compensated. There is no evidence that he could not resume his duties for about 2 years. 10. Looking at the above, there is no need to interfere in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The appeal has, thus, no merit and hence the same is accordingly dismissed.