Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 387 (RAJ)

Ram Gopal v. Gurmej Singh

2014-02-06

J.K.RANKA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 19.12.1994 passed by the MACT Jaipur City Jaipur, in claim case No.710/89, whereby the claimant was allowed a compensation of Rs. 2500/- by the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that a claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal mentioning therein that on 6.8.1988 when deceased Kanhaiya Lal along with Ram Gopal and Ram Niwas were coming from Sanganer on a Motor Cycle bearing No. RNI-8105, which was being driven by Ram Gopal with moderate speed and reached at Clarks Amber Hotel at about 4:00 p.m., a truck bearing No. PJA-6335, which was being driven rashly and negligently came from front side and caused head on collision with the vehicles as a result of which Kanhaiya Lal died and Ram Gopal sustained various injuries including fractures on right leg and head. It was alleged that Ram Niwas also sustained injuries on his person. It was averred that injured appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 2000/- per month by running a furniture shop. It was alleged that he got unconscious for 22 days and spent a sum of Rs. 25-26 thousand for his treatment and further that operation was conducted upon him and due to the injuries sustained in the accident he is unable to walk, sit and cannot climb up the stairs. It was further alleged that he did not go for work for six months. It was alleged that he got 10% disability due to the accident. 3. Ex parte proceedings were drawn against non-petitioners Nos. 1 & 2. The learned trial court after hearing the parties. The non-petitioner No.3 Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them. However, in their reply it was pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor cycle. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties framed as many as six issues including issue of relief. 5. The non-petitioner No.3 Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them. However, in their reply it was pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor cycle. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties framed as many as six issues including issue of relief. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that though the learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in question but ignoring the fact that the injured was earning Rs. 2000/- per month from doing furniture work and was of 29 years of age, has awarded a meagre amount of compensation of Rs. 2500/-, which is very less and deserves to be enhanced. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the injured beside having sufficient pecuniary loss as well as agony and is still suffering from the same, further he has been crippled and is unable to do day to day domestic works, therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as claimed in the claim petition. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated that the injured got 10% disability and on account of which some compensation should have been awarded. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of medical expenses. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned award submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by both the counsel and also perused the impugned award and material available on record. 8. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of appellant observed that Dr. M.K. Mathur, who appeared in evidence deposed that certificate (Ex.9) has been signed by three Doctors including him and according to him there is 10% disability on the right hand which is of permanent nature and due to it the injured will face difficulty in doing work from right hand. He further deposed that there were two fractures on the fingers of right hand and wrist was also fractured. In the cross examination he deposed that 10% disability means 10% deficiency in doing the work and earning the money. He further deposed that there were two fractures on the fingers of right hand and wrist was also fractured. In the cross examination he deposed that 10% disability means 10% deficiency in doing the work and earning the money. The Tribunal found that the statement of Dr. Mathur cannot be said to be reliable as in examination in chief he stated that the injured will face difficulty in doing the work but did not disclose in doing which kind of work, he will face difficulty. The Tribunal also observed and expressed surprise when witness Dr. Mathur was asked whether he knows what kind of work the injured is doing, then he replied that he do not know. Keeping all these facts and circumstances in view, the Tribunal granted Rs. 2500/- under the head of medical treatment. 9. In the present case, Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in question but ignoring the fact that the injured was 29 years' of age. The learned Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the injured beside having sufficient pecuniary loss as well as agony and is still suffering from the same further he has been crippled and is unable to do day to day domestic works, therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have granted some reasonable compensation to the claimant. In the incident the injured suffered 10% disability of permanent nature. Therefore,keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly age of the injured, nature of the injury and 10% disability, the amount of sum of Rs. 2500/- awarded by the Tribunal to the injured on account of injuries received by him deserves to be enhanced by Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 32,500/- instead of Rs. 2500/-, which has already been paid to the injured. 10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and amount of compensation on account of injury is enhanced from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 32500/-, which shall be paid to the injured by Demand Draft/Bankers Cheque within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Appeal partly allowed. *******