Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 310 (RAJ)

Amarpal Singh S/o Shri. Gurjant Singh v. Balwant Singh S/o Shri. Ranjeet Singh

2017-01-27

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 M.V Act against the judgment and award dated 27-09-2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar, whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,64,768/- to the claimant along with interest @ 7.5%. 2. The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 M.V. Act before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar alleging therein that on 20-12-2012 the appellant along with Jasvir Singh, Sandeep and Rahtash were coming from Gajsinghpur to Sri Ganganagar in Alto Car No. RJ 06CA-9007. The appellant was driving the car, Sandeep was sitting on front seat and Jasveer Singh and Rohtash were sitting on rear seat. When they reached near 6-B Pegoda Resorts, Sri Ganganagar then the respondent No. 1 while driving the bus No. RJ 13PA 0606 rashly and negligently came from the side of Sri Ganganagar and hit his car from driver side. In the said accident Jaspal Singh, Amarpal Singh and Sandeep Singh sustained injuries. The FIR of the case bearing FIR No. 386/2012 was registered and the police after investigation filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC against the respondent NO. 1. The appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 3. The learned tribunal issued the notices to all the respondents. On behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 reply to the claim petition was filed and denied the factum of accident and admitted the factum of insurance. It is further averted that at the time of accident the driver was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently whereas he was driving the vehicle in correct side and speed. The respondent No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving licence. The driver of the car while driving the car rashly and negligent caused the accident in wrong side, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is not responsible. 4. The respondent No. 4 insurance company filed the reply to the claim petition and stated that the driver of the car while driving the car rashly and negligently in wrong side hit the bus plying in correct side and the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the driver of the car. 4. The respondent No. 4 insurance company filed the reply to the claim petition and stated that the driver of the car while driving the car rashly and negligently in wrong side hit the bus plying in correct side and the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the driver of the car. It is further stated that as regard to injuries sustained in the accident the appellant has not produced any injury report, X-ray report and report of doctor. The driver of the bus has not produced the permit to ply the bus from Ganganagar to Padampur. The condition of insurance policy has been violated, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claimant. On the basis of the claim petition, reply filed to the same by the parties and evidence led thereto learned tribunal has decided the matter on 27-09-2016 whereby an award of Rs. 2,64,768/- has been passed in favour of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned tribunal has failed to appreciate the important aspect of the matter that the appellant has sustained fracture in hip joint and palm and Drs. have advised for surgical operation. 6. I have perused the record and impugned judgment dated 27.09.2016. 7. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,64,768/-. As regard the injuries sustained on account of the accident, the appellant-claimant has not produced any disablement certificate on record. The appellant-claimant has failed to prove that due to said motor accident, he sustained permanent disability. No physical disability and loss of the income due to injures is established by cogent evidence, nor there is any deformity for segregation of any of the parts of the body is established on the basis of advice for surgical operation or other medical evidence on record. The learned Tribunal while making assessment of the compensation has considered Ex.14 to 77 and Ex. 80 i.e. bills produced towards of medical treatment also. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal considering the expenses incurred towards hospitalization, medical treatment and medicine etc in computing compensation has awarded just and reasonable compensation. 8. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award dated 27-09-2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar. 9. Hence, Civil Misc. Appeal is dismissed.