Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 419 (RAJ)

Lrs of Late Dalu Ram v. Pratap Dan

2021-02-17

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard and disposed of finally. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 602/2008:- 2. The matter comes up on an application (Inward No.01/2021) under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for taking the LR's of the appellant Dalu Ram on record. 3. The application is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The legal representatives of the deceased - Dalu Ram are taken on record. The amended cause-title already filed is also taken on record. 5. The present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in MACT Claim Case No. 114/2006, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,780/- on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant- Dalu Ram in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006. 6. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,780/- to the appellant-claimant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006, the appellant -Dalu Ram suffered permanent disability to the extent of 32% as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a certificate of income was produced before the Tribunal, wherein, the income of injured- Dalu Ram was shown as Rs.4,200/- per month. The authenticity of this certificate was also proved, as the author of the certificate namely Ugararam who appeared in the witness box, he stated that the appellant was working in his firm and he had issued the certificate. Learned counsel further submits that the amount towards the pain and suffering and services extended by the attendant has not been taken into account while considering the compensation in the present case. He also submits that the amount towards the medicines spent by the appellant has not been duly considered and less amount has been paid. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the amount towards the pain and suffering and services extended by the attendant has not been taken into account while considering the compensation in the present case. He also submits that the amount towards the medicines spent by the appellant has not been duly considered and less amount has been paid. 8. Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards the future prospects has been awarded in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. reported in the AIR 2020 SC 4424 and Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways reported in the 2014 ACJ 692 . 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant evidence produced before it and rightly awarded the compensation in the present case. He further submits that the certificate of income issued by the owner -Ugararam was not conclusively proved of the income. The fact that in the statement of Ugararam, he has not mentioned that injured- Dalu Ram was working in his firm and in consideration thereof, he was being paid Rs.4200/- per month. In the statement, he only stated that he is the owner of the proprietor firm and the certificate has been issued by him for the payments made to the appellant. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that veracity of the certificate and the testimony of Ugararam before the Tribunal are highly doubtful with respect to the income of the injured- Dalu Ram. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the adequate compensation has been paid to the deceased-appellant on account of the injuries suffered in the present case, and, therefore, no interference in the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 is warranted by this Court. 11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 as well as other relevant record of the case. 12. The fact of accident is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents with the insured vehicle in the present case. Admittedly, the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 32% on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006. The certificate of income issued by the Proprietor firm Bajrang Electronics is on record as Exhibit-160. Admittedly, the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 32% on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006. The certificate of income issued by the Proprietor firm Bajrang Electronics is on record as Exhibit-160. Even in the statement of Ugararam, he stated that the Dalu Ram was working in his firm and he was being paid the amount of Rs.4200/ per month. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve the same. Merely because Ugararam had not stated in his testimony that the Dalu Ram was working in his firm, cannot be said to create doubt that the certificate issued to the appellant is not reliable and Dalu Ram was not working in the Proprietorship of Ugararam. It is held that the income certificate issued by Ugararam does not suffer from any doubt, and thus, the amount of income is required to be taken as Rs.4200/- per month. As far as the amount spent by the appellant on medicines etc. is concerned, the same was awarded to him by the Tribunal, taking into consideration the requisite bills produced before it and, therefore, that amount does not require any interference. 13. No amount towards the pain and suffering and towards the services rendered by the attendant was taken into consideration by the Tribunal in this case. Therefore, a lump-sump amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering and the amount spent on the services rendered by the attendant. 14. So far as the amount of future prospects is concerned, since the age of the appellant at the time of accident was 40 years, therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Pappu Deo Yadav and Sanjay Verma (Supra.), the amount of compensation to the extent of 25% towards the future prospects is awarded in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. 15. Thus, the amount liable to be paid to the appellants-claimants in the present case is recomputed as under :- 4200X25%=1050 (4200+1050=5250) 5250X32%=1680x12X15=3,02,400/- Rs. 3,02,400/- Pain and suffering ? Medical bills, etc.- Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 36,820/- Total Rs. 3,89,220/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 07.02.2008 Rs. 1,62,780/- Enhanced amount Rs. 2,26,440/- 16. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal is partly allowed. 3,02,400/- Pain and suffering ? Medical bills, etc.- Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 36,820/- Total Rs. 3,89,220/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 07.02.2008 Rs. 1,62,780/- Enhanced amount Rs. 2,26,440/- 16. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The respondent No.4-Insurance Company is directed to pay an enhanced amount of Rs.2,26,440/- to the appellants-claimants in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 07.02.2008 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition and till the same is paid to the appellants-claimants. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 597/2008:- 17. The present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in MACT Claim Case No. 111/2006, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,105/- on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant- Smt. Aasi Devi in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006. 18. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.20,105/- to the appellant-claimant. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006, the appellant suffered two simple injuries and one grievous injury of the mandible for which she was hospitalized for a period of five days. Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards the pain and suffering was awarded in the present case. The Tribunal assessed the amount on the lower side and, therefore, the same should be enhanced suitably. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal awarded adequate compensation to the appellant-claimant on account of the injuries suffered by her. Therefore, the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer does not require any interference by this Court. 21. The fact of accident is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents with the insured vehicle in the present case. Admittedly, the appellant-claimant suffered fracture on mandible along with two simple injuries and was hospitalized for a period of five days. 21. The fact of accident is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents with the insured vehicle in the present case. Admittedly, the appellant-claimant suffered fracture on mandible along with two simple injuries and was hospitalized for a period of five days. It is noted that no amount towards the pain and suffering was awarded by the Tribunal while adjudicating the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met, if a lump-sump amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and the services rendered by the attendant is awarded to the appellant in the present case in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is disposed of with the direction to the Respondent No.4-Insurance Company to pay an enhanced amount of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant-claimant in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 07.02.2008 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition and till the same is paid to the appellant-claimant. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 598/2008:- 23. The present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in MACT Claim Case No. 112/2006, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,94,800/- to the claimants on account of the death of Smt. Chhani Devi in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006. 24. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,94,800/- to the appellants-claimants. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced. He further submits that no amount towards the future prospects and general damages in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157 has been awarded. Thus, the compensation in the present case is required to be enhanced suitably. 26. He further submits that no amount towards the future prospects and general damages in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157 has been awarded. Thus, the compensation in the present case is required to be enhanced suitably. 26. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal while computing the compensation in the present case has taken into consideration all the relevant evidence produced before it in accordance with the provisions and the law prevailing at the time of deciding the claim petition of the appellant. Therefore, no error was committed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to dispute the fact of non-payment of the compensation towards the future prospects and general damages in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 27. The fact of accident is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents with the insured vehicle in the present case. Admittedly, the deceased was working on the agricultural farm of the family and was contributing in the farming activity of the family, therefore, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.2100/- per month. The deduction has rightly been done taking into consideration the dependency of the family members, however, the Tribunal has not added the amount towards the future prospects and correct amount towards the general damages while computing the income in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra.)- Thus the amount towards the future prospects and general damages are required to be awarded in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 28. Thus, the amount liable to be paid to the appellant-claimant in the present case is recomputed as under :- For future prospects:- 25% of Rs.2100/- (Income of deceased) Rs. 525/- Rs. 2100/- + Rs. 525/- Rs.2625/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. Rs.2625/- / 1/3 = Rs. 875/- Dependence Amount Rs. 2625 ? Rs.875 = Rs. 1750/- The age of deceased was 50 years therefore, a multiplier of 11 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death 1750x12x11 Rs. 2,31,000/- (II) Add. Convention, Consortium Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs. 2100/- + Rs. 525/- Rs.2625/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. Rs.2625/- / 1/3 = Rs. 875/- Dependence Amount Rs. 2625 ? Rs.875 = Rs. 1750/- The age of deceased was 50 years therefore, a multiplier of 11 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death 1750x12x11 Rs. 2,31,000/- (II) Add. Convention, Consortium Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs. 3,01,000/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 07.02.2008 Rs. 1,94,800/- Enhanced amount Rs.1,06,200/- 29. In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The respondent No.4-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,06,200/- to the appellants-claimants in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 07.02.2008 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition and till the same is paid to the appellants-claimants. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 601/2008:- 30. The present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in MACT Claim Case No. 113/2006, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 16,575/- on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant- Deepa Ram in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006. 31. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.16,575/- to the appellant-claimant. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant in this case, he remained hospitalized for a period of five days and spent huge amount on medicines etc. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the pain and suffering. The amount computed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced suitably. 33. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had awarded adequate compensation to the appellant-claimant on account of the injuries suffered by him. Therefore, the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer does not require any interference by this Court. 34. 33. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had awarded adequate compensation to the appellant-claimant on account of the injuries suffered by him. Therefore, the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer does not require any interference by this Court. 34. The fact of accident is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents with the insured vehicle in the present case. The fact that on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant, he remained hospitalized for a period of five days. However, no amount towards the pain and suffering was awarded by the Tribunal while adjudicating the claim of the appellant. 35. Considering the fact that the injured appellant-claimant was admitted for a period of 5 days in the hospital, therefore, the ends of justice will be met, if a lump-sump amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the appellant-claimant in the present case in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 36. In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The Respondent No.4-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant-claimant in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 07.02.2008 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition and till the same is paid to the appellant-claimant. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 603/2008:- 37. The present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in MACT Claim Case No. 115/2006, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.27,295/- on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant-Rama Ram in the accident which occurred on 07.04.2006. 38. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.27,295/- to the appellant-claimant. 39. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced suitably, in view of the injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant in the accident. 39. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced suitably, in view of the injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant in the accident. He further submits that the appellant suffered one grievous injury and three simple injuries and remained hospitalized for a period of five days. He further submits that no amount towards the pain and suffering was awarded by the learned Tribunal in the present case. 40. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal awarded adequate compensation to the appellant-claimant on account of the injuries suffered in the present case. Therefore, the judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer does not require any interference by this Court. 41. The fact of accident is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents with the insured vehicle in the present case. The fact that as the injured Rama Ram suffered one grievous injury in the shape of fracture of his shoulder and three simple injuries but no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the pain and suffering and other expenditure incurred and the services rendered by the attendant. 42. This Court feels that the ends of justice will be met, if a lump-sump amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the appellant-claimant in the present case in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 43. In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The Respondent No.4-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/- to the appellant-claimant in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 07.02.2008 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition and till the same is paid to the appellant-claimant.