Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1850 (RAJ)

Roop Chand v. Bhanwar Singh

2017-08-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals are directed against judgment and award dated 27.05.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,495/- as compensation to the claimant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 27.06.1996. 2. The application for compensation was filed by claimant Roopchand, inter alia, with the averments that on 05.02.1996 at about 05:30 PM, he was going on bicycle when the offending vehicle Bus No. RJ07-P-1040, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, struck the claimant, resulting in grievous and simple injuries. It was claimed that on account of injuries suffered by him, the claimant suffered permanent disablement; the claimant has been degraded and his all future prospects, regarding promotion, would be affected. 3. The application was opposed by the Corporation disputing the averments made in the application. 4. The Tribunal framed three issues. On behalf of claimant - four witnesses were examined and 39 documents were exhibited. On behalf of respondents - non-claimant driver Bhanwar Singh was examined. 5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the bus. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal based on the reading of the certificate produced as Exhibit-34, came to the conclusion that the said degradation as medical category "BEE" was temporary and it cannot be said that the claimant's chances of promotion would be affected on account of such injuries. The Tribunal based on the material available before it awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 495/- towards the medical bills and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 75,495/-. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal committed error in not accepting the plea raised by the appellant regarding his permanent disablement affecting his future prospects of promotion and/or permanent degradation and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that on account of the injuries suffered by him, the claimant was permanently demoted and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal denying award of compensation towards the said aspect deserves to be set aside. 7. It was submitted that on account of the injuries suffered by him, the claimant was permanently demoted and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal denying award of compensation towards the said aspect deserves to be set aside. 7. On behalf of the Corporation, it was submitted that no material was placed on record to indicate that the so called disablement of the claimant has in any manner permanently affected the claimant and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs. 75,000/- as lump sum compensation, which deserves to be set aside. 8. When these appeals came up for hearing before the Court on 20.09.2016, it was directed as under:- "The Tribunal by its impugned judgment did not accept the appellant's case that on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, his medical category has been degraded from A to B, as the doctor who was examined on behalf of the appellant indicated that the degradation was temporary for the period of two years and the permanency of such degradation would depend upon the appellant's condition at the end of two years. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to place on record subsequent developments pertaining to the appellant's service with the B.S.F. i.e. whether he was promoted subsequent to the accident and/or at what point of time he was retired and whether the accident had any implication on his service. The needful may be done within a period of four weeks. List the appeal after four weeks." 9. Again by order dated 02.05.2017, it was directed as under:- "Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant-claimant was examined by the Medical Board twice and the report of the Medical Board clearly goes to show that the appellant-claimant was placed under medical category 'CEE' temporarily but by a subsequent Board, his medical category was revised to medical category 'BEE' permanently, vide Ex-35, Ex-35A, Ex-36 and Ex-36A and the Medical Board issued a certificate with regard to permanent disablement of the appellant-claimant by Ex.37, Ex.31 which clearly establish that the injury sustained by the appellant-claimant in the accident has resulted in permanent disablement to the extent of 30% and under these circumstances the appellant-claimant found to be unfit for BSF services and therefore his services are likely to be prematurely terminated. Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that in para 15 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has held that the appellant-claimant has failed to establish that he was placed under medical category 'BEE'. Counsel for the appellant-claimant seeks four weeks' time to place on record relevant documents regarding disablement and medical category of the appellant-claimant. Put up after four weeks, as prayed." 10. Thereafter on 06.07.2017, on the request made by learned counsel for the appellant last opportunity to make efforts to produce material was granted and it was ordered that no further opportunity shall be granted and matter shall proceed based on the material available on record. 11. Today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite all the efforts being made, the counsel could not contact the claimant/appellant Roopchand and, as such, the material which is required by Court to be produced is not available. 12. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and the material, which is available on record, as noticed in orders dated 20.09.2016 and 02.05.2017, the alleged permanent disablement of the appellant is not established and the fact that the appellant suffered any permanent demotion and/or his future promotions were affected on account of injuries suffered by him, is not established and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the appellant does not call for any interference. 13. So far as the appeal filed by the respondent Corporation is concerned, the Tribunal after noticing the evidence which came on record pertaining to the injuries suffered by the claimant and the various aspects related to such injuries, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. Though the Tribunal has not bifurcated the amount of compensation under various heads, the award of lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in a case of present nature cannot be said to be excessive so as to require interference by this Court. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in both the appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed.