Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2386 (RAJ)

Balbir Jat v. Ram Singh

2019-09-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been preferred by the appellants (non-claimants) before the Tribunal, for assailing the judgment-cum-award dated 01.02.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh, District Churu in Claim Case No.76/2005, whereby the claim application preferred by the respondent Ram Singh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was accepted and he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.58,150/- by holding the appellants jointly and severely responsible for satisfying the award. 2. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award as well as the original record. 3. There is ample evidence available on record to show that the appellant Balbir drove his tractor in a rash and negligent manner and collided the same with the respondent Ram Singh causing him a grievous injury on his left leg. An FIR No. 91/2005 was lodged at the Police Station Hameer was in relation to the accident. After investigation, the appellant Balbir was chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. The claimant filed the claim application seeking damages to the tune of Rs.4,80,000/-. The appellant and other non-claimants filed reply stating that the claim was false. The tractor was damaged from well before the accident and was not roadworthy on that date. 4. The Tribunal framed the requisite issues. The evidence of the claimant Ram Singh (A.W. 1) and Dharm Singh (A.W. 3) was held to be reliable and the issue No. 1 regarding the claimant having received the injuries on account of collision by the offending tractor which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the appellant Balbir was decided in favour of the claimant. 5. The issue No. 2 was decided on the basis of the documents holding that the tractor No. RJ-10-R-0089, which was involved in the accident, was registered in the names of Amar Singh, Dhan Singh, Balbir and Sher Singh. 6. Regarding the issue No. 4, the non-claimants took a plea before the Tribunal that the tractor in question was not fit to be driven at the relevant time. In this regard, the MTO report was relied upon by the non-claimants. 6. Regarding the issue No. 4, the non-claimants took a plea before the Tribunal that the tractor in question was not fit to be driven at the relevant time. In this regard, the MTO report was relied upon by the non-claimants. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal found that the tractor was presented for inspection after 7 days of the incident. As per the MTO Report, the steering, brake, clutch etc. of the tractor were found to be in working condition. However, the engine could not be started as the same was jammed. The Tribunal held that as the vehicle was presented for inspection after significant delay, it could not be accepted that the same was not in a roadworthy condition on the date of the accident. 7. The issue No. 3 was framed to assess the quantum of damages. The claimant asserted that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent in his treatment. Medical bills to the tune of Rs.35,050/- were presented by the claimant, which were accepted and the amount thereof was awarded in his favour. A sum of Rs.25,00/- was awarded towards the transportation expenses. A sum of Rs.600/- was awarded towards hospitalization expenses. A sum of Rs.3000/- was awarded towards loss of income. A sum of Rs.3000/- was awarded towards nutritional diet. A sum of Rs.2000/- was awarded towards the litigation expenses and a sum of Rs.12,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering owing to the grievous injury suffered by the claimant on his leg. 8. Upon an overall appreciation of the impugned award and the record and the damages were appropriately assessed, this court finds that claim was rightly accepted. The appellants miserably failed to prove that the offending tractor was not in a roadworthy condition on the date of the accident. The claimant duly proved the fact that the tractor was driven by its driver Balbir in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted the collision causing a grievous injury on his leg. 9. Thus, I find no infirmity, illegality or error whatsoever in the impugned award warranting interference therein. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The record be returned to the Tribunal forthwith.