Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2713 (RAJ)

Kewal Krishan v. Jagsir Singh

2019-10-21

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. Appellant has preferred the present appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the following relief:- "In Appeal No. 133/2004 It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the appeal of the appellant/non-petitioner No.3 may kindly be allowed and quashed the impugned award dated 25.08.2003 passed by the Judge, MACT Court, Hanumangarh in Civil Misc. Case No.23/2002 title Jagsir Singh Vs. Balbri singh & Ors and dismissed the claim petition against the present appellant / non-petitioner with cost throughout. In Appeal No. 229/2004 It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the judgment and award dated 25.08.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh may kindly be modified and enhanced as per the claim petition.." 2. An unfortunate accident happened on 01.06.2001 when the claimant was going on motor-cycle from Hakam Mistry Garage at about 3.30 P.M. At that time, a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. PJF 6080 coming from Dhanmandi East Gate Roadway Depot was coming towards the side in question and the motor-cycle collided with the tractor. As a result of the said accident, the claimant received serious injuries, which included some fractures and also serious injuries on his lower stomach. 3. Civil Misc. Appeal No.133/2004 has been preferred by the owner / appellant for challenging the liability / saddled on the tractor in question, and Civil Misc. Appeal No.229/2004 preferred by the claimant is for enhancement of the award of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/tractor owner submitted that it is clear from the report of the MT Department that the motor-cycle in question had collided with the tractor at the place, where the tractor and trolley were hooked together. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that once the main body of the tractor has passed from the site of the accident and the motor-cycle comes and collides on the back side of the tractor where it is hooked to the trolley in question, then it shall not be a liability of the tractor owner and rather the complete negligence is of the motor-cycle rider, who is the claimant. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner has also drawn attention of this Court towards the other documents which were annexed along with the charge-sheet and were part of the investigation and have been produced by the claimant himself, which clearly indicate that the motor-cycle in question was being driven rashly and negligently and had, thus, collided with the tractor on the back side at the hook, where the trolley was attached. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner also submitted that the injuries in question do not reflect 100% disability and also the doctor's evidence clearly indicates that the injuries in question have been taken as an escalated version of the actual injuries. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner has also shown from the record that the place in question was such that the tractor was being driven on the right side and the road being narrow, the tractor was required to look on the main road, whereas the motor-cycle rider, which was supposed to join the road in question, was required to be alert and thus, the sole negligence in the accident on the part of the claimant. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent / claimant, however, submits that in case the owner wanted to prove the case of 'no negligence' then it was open to him to have pointed out the negligence on the part of the motor-cycle rider, and once the negligence could not be proved as the report of the MT Department itself is not on record, then the liability and compensation would remain. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant also submitted that looking into the seriousness of the injuries and while adopting the guidelines issued on 05.11.2018 by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, this Court ought to enhance the compensation. It is also submitted that the injuries were very grievous and the disablement of the claimant is complete. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant also pointed out that the claimant was vertically fractured at C 4-7 which resulted into an operation. Furthermore, the injury in the lower stomach resulted into the process of urinating and discharging of urine having gone beyond control of the claimant. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has further shown the disability certificate, which is an exhibit to the record. Furthermore, the injury in the lower stomach resulted into the process of urinating and discharging of urine having gone beyond control of the claimant. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has further shown the disability certificate, which is an exhibit to the record. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant also shown that the critical injuries on the spine have rendered the claimant 100% disabled, and thus, the heavy cost of the medicines and hospitalization were also borne by the claimant. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent / claimant further submitted that the claimant was married only three months prior to the accident, but due to the 100% disability, his wife deserted him, and there were only old parents residing with the claimant, who were supposed to take care of the claimant. The inability to discharge latrine or urine was also pointed out in the medical report and the treatment at Ludhiana hospital is also reflected. The complication due to the spine injury, and neck nerves suppression is also pointed out. As per the doctor's statement, the claimant has been rendered completely disabled, even after having been given best of the treatment. The down portion of the neck of the claimant is suffering from numbness, and the sensitivity has completely gone, resulting into the other consequential medical complications. 14. Learned Tribunal framed two issues; firstly whether the accident was caused by the tractor which resulted into serious injuries to the rider of the motor-cycle; and secondly, whether the claimant was entitled to receive compensation, if yes then, who was liable to pay such compensation and to what extent. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that though the learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the tractor was in a position to establish that the accident happened at an adjacent angle which resulted into the motor-cycle going between the tractor and trolley at the place where both are hooked together, and thus, motor-cycle was crushed and the claimant was injured; but this does not necessarily mean that the negligence would not be that of the tractor owner. 16. 16. The tractor and trolley is a long vehicle together, and if motor-cycle was coming an adjacent then it could not create a situation that the tractor could not have avoided the accident, by stopping and rather if the tractor made an effort to rush out, then it being a long vehicle, the two wheeler is likely to get struck in between the body of the tractor-trolley. The front portion of the tractor is hardly 7 to 8 feet long and adjacent vehicle coming may collide even after the front part of the tractor has passed through the place in question. 17. The site plan which is the record, clearly shows that the tractor was on the right side on the road on which it was coming, whereas the motor-cycle rider was on the left side on the adjacent road, on which it was coming. The site plan however, does not indicate any negligence on the part of motor-cycle rider. The medical record indicates very serious injuries upon the claimant and the 100% disability certificate is also on record, which has been rightly believed by the learned Tribunal, while determining the compensation in question. 18. In light of the aforesaid observations, the appeal No.133/2004 of the appellant/ owner is found to be bereft of any reason so as to warrant any interference in the compensation awarded. Hence, the Civil Misc. Appeal No.133/2004 is dismissed. 19. However, as regards Civil Misc. Appeal No.229/2004 preferred by the claimant, looking into the grievous injuries, this Court deems it appropriate to apply the revised guidelines issued on 05.11.2018 by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to make re-computation of the compensation in question. Thus, Civil Misc. Appeal No.229/2004 is allowed and adopting the aforesaid guidelines, the compensation is re-computed as follows :- 1. Age of the injured 22 2. Permanent disability (100%) [25000+(6000X100=6,00,000)] 6,25,000 3. Hospitalization (39days X1100) 42,900 Total 6,67,900 4. Pain and sufferings (25% of 6,67,900) 1,66,975 5. Medical Bills Total Compensation Already awarded by Tribunal Enhanced award 1,28,779 9,63,654 3,38,779 6,24,875 20. Appeal No.229/2004 is allowed and adopting the aforesaid guidelines, the compensation is re-computed as follows :- 1. Age of the injured 22 2. Permanent disability (100%) [25000+(6000X100=6,00,000)] 6,25,000 3. Hospitalization (39days X1100) 42,900 Total 6,67,900 4. Pain and sufferings (25% of 6,67,900) 1,66,975 5. Medical Bills Total Compensation Already awarded by Tribunal Enhanced award 1,28,779 9,63,654 3,38,779 6,24,875 20. On such computation, the owner of the tractor in question shall be liable to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.6,24,875/- as per the revised guidelines for settlement in MACT cases as issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority dated 05.11.2018, which shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is made. The enhanced amount is to be paid within three months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after three months from today) till actual payment is made.