Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 659 (RAJ)

Isa Ram v. Kalu Singh

2012-03-16

VINEET KOTHARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Tribunal by the impugned award dated 13.4.2011 while deciding the claim case No. 257/2009, Isha Rem v. Kalu Singh & Ors. along with claim case No. 256/2009-Kana Rum v. Kalu Singh & Ors. has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,05,254/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant Isha Ram in an accident which took place on 26.8.2008 when the Kana Ram and lsha Ram travelling in a three wheeler taxi registered, at RJ-19-PA/1931 from Balesar Satta to Jaisalmer on Jodhpur Road were hit by another vehicle No. RJ-06-UA/1117 being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1 Kalu Singh and on account of said accident, both these suffered injuries for which different claim petitions were filed by them before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1958. 2. The evidence produced by the claimants besides documentary evident in the form of police record was AW-1 Isha Ram, AW-2 Kana Ram and AW-3 Dr. Mahesh Bhati. While deciding claim petition No. 256/2009-Kana Ram v. Kalu Singh & Ors. , the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,500/-, whereas while deciding the Claim Case No. 257/2009 of Isha Ram, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,05,254/-. 3. The nature of injuries indicated vide, injury report Ex.8 are fracture of radium and ulna and fracture of tibia and injury' was indicated to be blunt grievous vide injury report dated 9.10.2008. 4. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of said claimant under the following heads as under:- (i) Medical expenditure on the basis of bills = Rs. 1,54,578/- (ii) Misc. expenses during admission in hospital = Rs. 15,000/- (iii) For mental and physical agony on account of aforesaid two fractures = Rs. 75,000/- (iv) Loss of income at 12.47% disability proved by Dr. Mahesh Bhati taking annual income at = Rs. 72,000/- 72,000 X 15 = 10,80,000 _____________________ 12.47% of 10,80,000 = Rs. 1,34,676/- (v) Diet = Rs. 10,000/- (vi) Transportation expenses = Rs. 16,000/- Total = Rs. 4,05,254/- 5. The claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking further enhancement of said compensation before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that transportation expenses have been reduced without any reason to Rs. 16,000/- and also compensation under other heads deserves to be enhanced. 7. 10,000/- (vi) Transportation expenses = Rs. 16,000/- Total = Rs. 4,05,254/- 5. The claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking further enhancement of said compensation before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that transportation expenses have been reduced without any reason to Rs. 16,000/- and also compensation under other heads deserves to be enhanced. 7. Haying heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the injury report as aforesaid and amount of claim awarded by the learned Tribunal in different heads, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation amount in favour of the appellant-claimant is already on the excessive side. Not only full medical expenditure has been reimbursed, but looking to the disability to the extent of 12.47%, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,34,676/- on the basis of annual income of Rs. 72,000/- and multiplier of 15 has been applied even though the said injuries cannot be deemed to he causing loss of income for 15 years. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for pain and agony appears to be excessive. Over all view of learned Tribunal award particularly deciding issue No. 1 and 2 by one line orders without discussing any part of evidence led by both the parties shows that the Tribunal has passed the impugned award in a cursory manner. 8. Being the first fact finding Court and fact, finding body, it is expected from the learned Tribunal (MACT) to discuss the entire evidence led by the parties properly. Looking to the nature of accident as indicated above, the case of contributor)' negligence also could be there. However, nothing of that sort is discussed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award and the findings on issue No. 1 and 2 framed by the learned Tribunal are only one liners that issues No. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the claimant. Such a practice on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be appreciated and countenanced and it is expected of the Tribunal to discuss the evidence of parties in detail and return its findings on facts giving their own reason. 9. Such a practice on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be appreciated and countenanced and it is expected of the Tribunal to discuss the evidence of parties in detail and return its findings on facts giving their own reason. 9. The compensation which has to be just and fair, in accordance with the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not a largess or bounty to be freely distributed to the claimants without proper evidence. The Insurance Company's money which goes to satisfy these awards as per the provisions of the Act is also the public money and therefore, the reasonable balance between the loss suffered by the claimant and compensation to be just and fair and considerations applicable to the Insurance Company has to be maintained by the learned Tribunal. 10. This Court has come across these kinds of awards casually allowing the claim petition particularly from this particular Tribunal on several occasions (Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, the Presiding Officer) and therefore, putting a question mark, by way of caution on such awards is necessary'. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the various heads also does not contain much of the reasons in that and almost mechanically excessive compensation is awarded, which makes the tenor of the award showing the non-application of mind by the learned Tribunal. The appeal seeking further enhancement of such excessive compensation already granted by the Tribunal cannot be entertained by this Court. It would only add premium to the unreasonableness which also stares in the face of the award. Therefore, while dismissing the present appeal seeking enhancement of the award of Rs. 4,05,254/- for the two fractures suffered by the injured claimant of radius and ulna bone and tibia bone cannot be entertained and in the considered opinion of this Court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed at threshold. 11. Consequently, the present appeal of claimant is found to be devoid of any merit and same is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned for needful guidance in future.Appeal dismissed. *******