Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 659 (JK)

Union of India & anr. v. Bishambar Lal

2012-10-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. This CIMA is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.08.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, in a Claim Petition, titled as, Bishamber Lal v. Darshan Singh & another, whereby an award of Rs.3,09,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization came to be granted in favour of claimant-respondent (for short, impugned award), on the grounds taken in the appeal. Brief facts: 2. On 02.02.2001, Tipper, bearing registration No. 97E-69108 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’), which was being driven by appellant no.2, Darshan Singh, rashly and negligently, hit the Scooter, bearing registration No. JK02A-4196, which was coming from opposite side, near Bagga Marh Morh, R. S. Pura, as a result of which claimant, respondent herein, as well as one pillion rider sustained multiple injuries. Claimant-respondent was admitted to Government Medical College, Jammu vide MRD No.255994 and MLC No.5540. Thereafter, some operations were conducted as his both the legs were badly affected. 3. A claim petition came to be filed by the claimant-respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.11,28,500/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. Appellants-respondents were put to notice. They appeared and filed their written statement resisting the claim petition. 5. Out of pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed:- “1. Whether an accident took place on 2.2.2001 near Bagga Marh Morh R.S. Pura due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No.97E 69108 belonging to Union of Inida in which petitioner sustained injuries; if so of what nature? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so of what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief ? O.P. Parties” 6. Claimant-respondent examined PWs Asha KUmari, Ram Pal, Natha Ram, Lekh Raj and -1 Bashir Ahmed, PW-2 Abdul Qayoom and PW-3 Mushtaq Ahmed and Dr. Harish Dang and also appeared in the witness box. 7. All the witness have deposed that the driver while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently hit the scooter of claimant-respondent, as a result of which the claimant-respondent along with one pillion rider sustained multiple injuries. Harish Dang and also appeared in the witness box. 7. All the witness have deposed that the driver while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently hit the scooter of claimant-respondent, as a result of which the claimant-respondent along with one pillion rider sustained multiple injuries. Claimant-respondent was taken to R. S. Pura Hospital, wherefrom he was referred to Government Medical College, Jammu in view of the nature of injuries he suffered in the said accident. In the hospital both of his legs were operated upon and he remained under treatment for three months. His left leg remained plastered for six months. They have deposed that how much huge amount the claimant-respondent spent on his treatment. 8. Doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of both lower limbs to the extent of 30%. The disability certificate is marked as EXPWHK. 9. Appellant-insurer has not led any evidence in rebuttal, thus the evidence led by the claimant has remained un-rebutted. 10. There is evidence on the file that the claimant-respondent was earning Rs.200/- per day and after the accident he was not in a position to work for more than eighteen months. He had to engage an attendant @ Rs.1500/- per month to look after him for all these 18 months. 11. Learned Tribunal after scanning the evidence and the record on the file held that the minimum average income of the claimant-respondent was not less than Rs.3500/- per month. It further held that 30% permanent disability has affected the earning capacity of claimant-respondent to the tune of Rs.1050/- per month. Keeping in view the age of claimant-respondent, the learned Tribunal applied multiplier 15 while assessing the loss of income of claimant-respondent at the rate of Rs.12,600/- per annum. Learned Tribunal accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- in favour of claimant-respondent under the head loss of future income, Rs.20,000/- under the head medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- under the head mental shock, pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of amenities of life. Thus, in total, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,09,000/- along with 7.5% interest in favour of claimant-respondent from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 12. Thus, in total, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,09,000/- along with 7.5% interest in favour of claimant-respondent from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 12. While examining the record, it appears that the amount awarded under different heads is very meagre as the claimant-respondent had to remain admitted in the hospital for a pretty long time, has spent huge amount on his treatment and suffered 30% permanent disablement which has affected his 30 percent earning capacity. Since the claimant-respondent has not questioned the award, reluctantly the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is upheld. 13. In view of the above, this appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed along with all connected CMAs.