Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1906 (RAJ)

Ganesh v. Ram Prakash

2021-10-01

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25.08.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.391/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the appellant-claimant and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,40,700/- in favour of the appellant-claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 07.09.2003. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.4 is incorrect. He submits that though it was brought on record that the appellant was serving as ?Doffer? in the Super Syncotex (India) Ltd., Gulabpura, the monthly income of the appellant was assessed as Rs.1500/- only. He submits that in the light of the evidence of co-worker Bhomaram @ Bheem Singh, it was proved before the Tribunal that the appellant was working in the Super Syncotex (India) Ltd., Gulabpura on the post of ?Doffer? and his salary was Rs.3,240/- per month. He further submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the salary certificate issued by the competent authority of the company where he was working. Thus, the amount of Rs.1500/- taken into consideration for computation of the award in the present case is on the face of it is incorrect and erroneous. 4. Learned senior counsel further submits that since the appellant was performing the work of ?Doffer; and in view of the amputation of the right leg below the hip, it virtually made him 100% incapable to perform the work, therefore, taking into consideration the manner of work performed by a Doffer because of 80% permanent disability, the appellant should be treated as 100% disabled. 5. Learned senior counsel submits that no amount towards the loss of future prospects was awarded in the light of the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways 2014 ACJ 692 and Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. AIR 2020 SC 4424 . Thus, in view of the submissions made above, learned senior counsel submits that the award in the present case is required to be re-computed and suitably enhanced. 6. AIR 2020 SC 4424 . Thus, in view of the submissions made above, learned senior counsel submits that the award in the present case is required to be re-computed and suitably enhanced. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had taken into consideration all the relevant evidence brought before it and after analyzing the same rightly decided the claim application of the appellant-claimant vide order dated 25.08.2005. He further submitted that the compensation awarded in the present case is a ?just compensation? and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 25.08.2005 as well as other relevant record of the case. 8. The documents exhibited before the Tribunal along with the affidavit of the appellant clearly shows that the appellant was working as ?Doffer? in Super Syncotex (India) Ltd., Gulabpura. Salary certificate produced and exhibited before the Tribunal as Exhibit-8 also shows the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,240/-. Besides this, the testimony of Bhom Singh clearly goes to show that the appellant was working as ?Doffer? in the factory at Gulabpura and was earning Rs.3,240/- per month. The fact mentioned in the affidavit of the appellant that on account of having suffered amputation of the right leg, his services were dispensed with by the employer, is also not rebutted from the respondent side. As the appellant was unable to perform any kind of job, therefore, it can safely be presumed that the services of the appellant were dispensed with. The age of the appellant at the time of the accident as reflected in the documents produced before the Tribunal was 26 years and the same is also not disputed. 9. Taking into consideration the evidence brought on record and the affidavit of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that monthly income of the appellant should have been assessed as Rs.3,240/- instead of Rs.1500/-. 10. In view of the disability suffered by the appellant, this Court is of the view that on account of amputation of the right leg from below the hip, it virtually rendered the appellant unable to perform the services as ?Doffer? and, any other job, therefore, the disability in the present case should have been assessed as 100% instead of 80%. 11. and, any other job, therefore, the disability in the present case should have been assessed as 100% instead of 80%. 11. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the loss of future prospects in the light of the judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways 2014 ACJ 692 and Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. AIR 2020 SC 4424 . 12. Therefore, the same is required to be taken into consideration while recomputing the award in the present case. 13. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted the re-calculation of the award in the present case which is as under:- Income Loss =3240X12X17 =Rs. 6,60,960/- Future Prospects = 40% X 6,60,960/- =Rs. 2,64,384/- Medical Bills =Rs.3,700/- =Rs. 3,700/- Hospitalization Expenses/Bed =600X13 days =Rs. 7,800/- Pain & Suffering =Rs.1,25,000/- =Rs. 1,25,000/- Conveyance Exp =Rs.2,000/- =Rs. 2,000/- Total Award =Rs.10,63,844/- (-) Amount already awarded by MACT, Bhilwara =Rs. 4,40,700/- Total Amount Enhanced =Rs. 6,23,144/- 14. The other factors employed by the Tribunal are unchanged as the same are in conformity with law. 15. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.6,23,144/- (Rs. Six Lac Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Forty Four Only) in favour of the appellant-claimant in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 25.08.2005 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the same is paid.