Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1870 (RAJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. Manju Devi

2021-09-28

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeals are listed in the orders category. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided finally. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 569/2021 2. The instant appeal preferred by appellant Ramesh Kumar who is owner of the vehicle is barred by limitation of 738 days. An application has been preferred for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. The application preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 738 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 05.03.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.40/2015 (Manju Devi V/s Rewaram & Ors.) whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent No.l-claimant was partly allowed and liability to make the payment of compensation was fastened upon the appellant. 6. The claim petition was filed by the respondent No.l-claimant Manju Devi on account of the grievous and simple injuries sustained by her in the accident which occurred on 23.05.2014. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No.l-claimant vide its judgment and award dated 05.03.2019. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Learned counsel for appellant Ramesh Kumar submits that the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 05.03.2019 has given a direction for payment of compensation amount to the respondent No.l-claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle involved in the present case. It is stated that the ground on which the Tribunal has given this direction is that valid fitness certificate of the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. Auto Rickshaw was not produced before the Tribunal and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation amount. Learned counsel submits that by way of filing an application under order 41 Rule 27 CPC before this court, the fitness verification certificate of the vehicle involved in the accident has been produced before this court as Annex.A/1. 9. Learned counsel submits that by way of filing an application under order 41 Rule 27 CPC before this court, the fitness verification certificate of the vehicle involved in the accident has been produced before this court as Annex.A/1. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that on the direction being given by this court to get the fitness certificate verified from the competent authority, the same was got verified and found to be valid at the time of the accident, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is not correct on the issue No.3. 10. Having heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment dated 05.03.2019, this court is of the view that the direction of the Tribunal to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the Auto Rickshaw and its driver is unsustainable, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The direction of the Tribunal vide judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No.40/2015 to recover the amount of compensation from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is set aside. It is directed that the respondent insurance company will be liable to satisfy the compensation in the present case. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1991/2019 12. The defects pointed out by the office are overruled. 13. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 05.03.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.40/2015 (Manju Devi V/s Rewaram & Ors.) whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,11,450/- as compensation in favour of the appellant-claimant. 14. The claim petition was filed by the appellant-claimant on account of the grievous and simple injuries sustained by her in the accident which occurred on 23.05.2014. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant vide its judgment dated 05.03.2019. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant vide its judgment dated 05.03.2019. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the certificate of disability issued by the competent medical authorities and has taken into account the permanent disability only to the extent of 10% instead of 15% disability as reflected in the disability certificate issued by the medical authorities. He further submits that no amount towards the loss of future prospects has been awarded by the Tribunal in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424 and Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways reported in 2014 SC 995 on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the interest awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation is on the lower side, therefore, he prays for awarding the interest on the amount of compensation @ 8% p.a. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to refute the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. However, he submits that multiplier of 14 should have been applied in the present case instead of 15 taking into consideration the age of the appellant being 42 years. 17. Both the learned counsels jointly submit that for re-computation of the amount for the purpose of loss of income shown in the table prepared by the Tribunal in Para No.31 of the judgment, Column No.1 of the table is required to be replaced and amount is required to be re-computed as under:- Loss of Income Permanent Disability - 15% 5000x12x14x15/100 - Rs.1,26,000/- Add: Future Prospects @ 25% - Rs.31,500/- ____________ Rs.1,57,500/- _____________ Less: Amount awarded under the head of loss of income towards disability - Rs.90,000/- Enhanced amount - Rs.67,500/- 18. An amount of Rs.90,000/- as reflected in Column No. l of Para No.31 of the judgment is substituted by an amount of Rs. 1,57,500/- and, therefore, an amount of Rs.67,500/- is enhanced in the present case. An amount of Rs.90,000/- as reflected in Column No. l of Para No.31 of the judgment is substituted by an amount of Rs. 1,57,500/- and, therefore, an amount of Rs.67,500/- is enhanced in the present case. However, the amount reflected in other heads of the table in Para 31 of the judgment passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference and the same shall remain unchanged. 19. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant for awarding interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of compensation is concerned, the same is noted to be rejected in view of the prevailing rate of interest. 20. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.67,500/-to the appellant-claimant in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition before the Tribunal till the same is paid.