Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2224 (RAJ)

Jakir Hussain v. Narayan Gauda

2013-12-10

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 6.10.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the injuries suffered by the appellant. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: on 25.4.1994 at about 6.15 A.M., when the appellant was travelling in Car bearing No. GRU-111 being driven by Naresh Bhai Patel alongwith Mohd. Sharif, Wasim Kadri, Shamim Aqtar from Rajnagar to Ajmer, a Bus bearing No. AP-02-Y-1449 being driven by the respondent-Narayan Gauda, collided with the said Car, which resulted, injuries to the occupants including the appellant. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that respondent-Narayan Gauda was driving the Bus rashly and negligently, which resulted into the accident occurred. 4. The Tribunal while considering the issue regarding award of compensation, came to the conclusion that there was no fracture as per Exhibit-46 X-ray report and the disability certificate indicated restrictive movement in the fingers, however, no document was produced to indicate fracture in the fingers of the appellant on account of the accident. Further, the Tribunal was of the opinion that no document was produced indicating hospitalization of the appellant for period of one month and, consequently, it awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for 2 simple injuries, Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. 5. it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the injuries suffered by the appellant and, consequently, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent supported to award impugned and submitted that the award has been passed on the basis of documentary evidence available on record and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the award impugned alongwith the record. 8. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation based on the documentary evidence available on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any document, which has escaped the consideration of the Tribunal. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the award impugned alongwith the record. 8. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation based on the documentary evidence available on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any document, which has escaped the consideration of the Tribunal. So far as consideration of Exhibit-1 disability certificate issued by the Doctor is concerned the said disability could not be connected with the accident as such, as the X-ray report and the medical report did not indicate any fracture in the fingers on recount of the accident and, consequently, the Tribunal was justified in discarding the disability certificate. The award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 9. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the appeal and the lame is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******