Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 264 (RAJ)

Sudeep Datta v. Ajjijjudeen

2013-02-01

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed against the award dated 5-5-2007 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in MACT case No. 38/3005 whereby the claimant has been awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- for the injury received by him and the medical expenses. The claimant has filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation whereas the RSRTC has filed the appeal for quashing the award. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Brief facts relating to this case are that on 29-1-2005 Shri Mirajul Islam, Smt. Mumtaj Begam, Juber Ahmed and Sudeep Datta were going from Delhi towards Ajmer by Indica Car No. DL 3 CU 9528. When this car reached in front of Hotel Rose, a bus No. RJ 191 P 0871 which was being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver came and hit the Indica car. Because of hit Snit. Mumtaj Begam Juber Ahmed and Sudeep Datta sustained serious injuries and Shri Mirajul Islam died. The claimant filed claim petition before the MACT. The respondent No. 1 the driver of the bus did not appear before the MACT however ex parte proceedings were done against him. The respondent No. 2 the owner of the bus contested the claim and tiled its reply. On the basis of the pleadings of both the sides issues were framed and statements of witnesses were recorded. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the MACT decided issues 1, 2 and 4 in favour of the claimants. While deciding issues 3 and 5 the MACT awarded merely a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- to the claimant along with 6 per cent interest. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant appellant has argued that the MACT has manifestly erred in awarding merely a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The claimant submitted medical expenses bill of Rs. 2,19,614/-. The claimant appellant produced disablement certificate showing 33.65 per cent disability. The learned counsel has argued that nothing has been awarded for loss of amenities of life, loss of studies, loss of future studies and loss of future working and earning capacity. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC has argued that the findings of issues 1 and 4 are absolutely illegal, perverse and contrary to the recorded. The learned counsel has argued that nothing has been awarded for loss of amenities of life, loss of studies, loss of future studies and loss of future working and earning capacity. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant RSRTC has argued that the findings of issues 1 and 4 are absolutely illegal, perverse and contrary to the recorded. The MACT has erred in holding that the accident in question occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the RSRTC because there was ample evidence on record showing that the driver of the Indica car was negligent. The driver of the RSRTC bus appeared in witness box and stated that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle negligently and was responsible for the accident and as such there was no reason to fasten the liability upon the RSRTC. Considering the contributory negligence of the car driver, 50% of the awarded amount deserves to be deducted. While deciding issue No. 3 the MACT has awarded excessive amount as compensation. 6. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the award passed by the MACT. The counsel for the RSRTC has seriously only contested that the driver of the Indica car was negligent and atleast contributory negligence should be considered and 50% amount of compensation should be deducted. The MACT in relation to issues I and 2 in para No. 12 held as under : (Vernacular matter omitted..... Ed.) 7. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on issues 1 and 2. In relation to issue No. 4 the MACT held that the driver was in the employment of the RSRTC and hence driver and the RSRTC jointly held liable for compensation. In relation to issue No. 3 in relation to the claimant Sudeep Datta the MACT held that he has produced the medical expenses bill of Rs. 2,19,614/-. The MACT in relation to the disability, mental agony. medical expenses etc. awarded a lump sum Rs. 4,25,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be unreasonable. The finding arrived at by the MACT is just and proper. The appeals filed by the RSRTC and the claimant both being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The interim order dated 21- 9-2007 stands vacated. medical expenses etc. awarded a lump sum Rs. 4,25,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be unreasonable. The finding arrived at by the MACT is just and proper. The appeals filed by the RSRTC and the claimant both being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The interim order dated 21- 9-2007 stands vacated. The MACT shall disburse the amount of compensation to the claimant as per the terms of the award.Order Appeal dismissed. *******