Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 364 (RAJ)

Jagdish v. Virendra Singh

2022-02-04

SUDESH BANSAL

body2022
JUDGMENT Birendra Kumar, J. - The sole appellant Jagdish is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk for permanent disablement of the appellant in a motor vehicle accident. Hence this appeal. 2. One Ram Kishan Meena lodged Duni PS Case No.194/1999 regarding the accident wherein Ram Kishan Meena stated that he had gone to take a holy dip at Pushkar alongwith Giriraj and the appellant Jagdish. after taking holy dip, all the three were returning to their village. at Dolta Mor, they took a lift on Truck No.HR-36-G-9282. The driver gave them seat in the cabin of the truck. The truck was loaded with stone chips. Near Dhadholi Puliya, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, the truck turned turtle. The informant and the appellant Jagdish sustained serious injuries on their body whereas Giriraj Meena lost his life. after investigation of the case, the police submitted charge sheet against the driver of the truck vide Ex-2. 3. The legal representatives of the deceased, the appellant and Ram Kishan filed separate claim cases for compensation. The case filed by the appellant was Claim Case No.(1131/2001) (510/99) 327/2011. all the cases were initially decided by the judgment and award dated 14.05.2002 whereunder the appellant was awarded Rs.2,50,000/- against his claim of Rs.6,94,000/-. The appellant challenged the inadequacy of the compensation in S.B. Civil Misc. appeal No.1440/2002. after hearing the parties, a Bench of this Court by judgment dated 12.07.2011 remitted back the matter to the Tribunal to decide issue Nos.2 & 6 afresh considering judgment of this Court in K.G. Saxena Vs. anil Kumar & Ors., reported in 2006 RaR page 43 (Rajasthan). The two issues were; (a). is the claimant entitled for compensation from the respondents; and (b) What should be the compensation amount. Learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 01.03.2012 awarded Rs.2,62,640/- to the claimant alongwith interest of 7% from the date of application dated 10.09.1999 till recovery. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Sandeep Mathur submits that the claimant stated his age as 50 years in the claim petition and 52 years at the time of his deposition in this Court after two years of the filing of the claim petition. The doctor simply on assessment, recorded age of the claimant as 55 years without any forensic examination for age determination. Sandeep Mathur submits that the claimant stated his age as 50 years in the claim petition and 52 years at the time of his deposition in this Court after two years of the filing of the claim petition. The doctor simply on assessment, recorded age of the claimant as 55 years without any forensic examination for age determination. In the circumstance, learned Tribunal fell in error, while applying multiplier, in taking age of the appellant as 55 years relying on the medical report which was based on conjectures and surmises. Since the age of the appellant was in the slab of 45 to 50 years, he was entitled for a multiplier of 13. Learned counsel next contends that the learned Tribunal without any rhyme and reason did not accept the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month from his business of green grocery. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal arbitrarily adopted the daily wages rate of the time which was Rs.60 while deciding multiplicand. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Vs. Mohan and Others, reported in (2018) 4 SCC 571 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the claim of the appellant's earning of Rs.6000/- per month as the appellant was a carpenter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the amount was not unreasonable or contrary to the realistic assessment of the situation on the date of accident. Learned counsel next contends that the Tribunal fell in error in not awarding any compensation under the head, future prospect, expenses incurred during treatment, extra nursing meeted out nor the Tribunal made any apportionment under the head, expenses for attendant and future treatment. a meager amount was allowed for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. 5. Mr. Gaurav Jain learned counsel for the respondent-The New India assurance Company Limited contends that since the offending vehicle was for carrying goods and not for carrying passengers, the driver violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the policy was carrying risk only to the extent for carrying goods. It is well settled that the insurer cannot avoid its responsibility to pay compensation to the third party who suffered injuries or death in a motor vehicle accident. It is well settled that the insurer cannot avoid its responsibility to pay compensation to the third party who suffered injuries or death in a motor vehicle accident. If the terms of the policy was violated by the insured, it would be open for the insurer to take up the matter under appropriate proceeding for the recovery, of the paid compensation, from the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, the issue that the appellant sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident caused by Truck bearing Registration No.HR-36-G-9282 and other issues stand decided and got finality. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent-The New India assurance Company Limited, hence the joint and sever liability of the insurer is also established. 6. The only point for consideration is whether the Tribunal has come to a just compensation in the facts and circumstances of this case. after the accident on 30.08.1999 the appellant was referred to Sadar Hospital, Tonk, where his X-ray was done and X-ray report dated 31.08.1999 Ex-5 reveals that the appellant had sustained fracture on upper end of Tibia and Fibula, fracture of 2nd to 11th ribs of left side, fracture of clavicle, left hand was fractured and little and index finger were cut. On 07.09.1999 vide Ex-6 another medical report was submitted alongwith opinion based on the same X-ray report disclosing that injury Nos.1, 4, 5 & 6 were grievous in nature and rest were simple in nature. On 10.05.2000 the appellant was reexamined by the doctor, who found that the appellant was still unable to stand because of no motor power in both feet. Knee movement was restricted up to 70%. The appellant was unable to cross-legged sit and squatting. The appellant was catheterized because of no control on urination bladder and bowel. The doctor concluded that the appellant was having permanent disablement of 90%. When the appellant was brought before the Court for deposition, he was brought on a cot in a lying position. He made the statement before the Court in lying position. The Tribunal recorded everything in the impugned judgment. The appellant deposed in details about the accident. He stated that he was in the business of selling vegetables. He stated about his inability to move now rather his ordinary and natural pursuits were not possible without help and support of others. He made the statement before the Court in lying position. The Tribunal recorded everything in the impugned judgment. The appellant deposed in details about the accident. He stated that he was in the business of selling vegetables. He stated about his inability to move now rather his ordinary and natural pursuits were not possible without help and support of others. He deposed about the medical expenses meeted out by him which was recurring one for the ongoing treatment. The nature of disablement of the appellant disclosed in the medical evidence goes to show that he suffered 100% permanent disablement. In Jagdish (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated in para 8 of the judgment as follows for keeping in mind while assessing the compensation payable to the victim of injury:- '8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. a victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects: (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; (ii) Loss of income including future income; (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities; (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life.' 7. In view of the settled guidelines for assessing compensation payable to the victim who suffered permanent disability arising out of the use of motor vehicle, in my view, there was nothing before the Tribunal to reject the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by selling vegetables. Therefore the multiplicand of Rs.3000X12=Rs.36000/- per annum would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case. Since the appellant was of 50 years of age at the time of accident, the correct multiplier would be of 13. Thus, the loss caused to the appellant's life was Rs.4,68,000/-. The appellant is entitled for addition of 25% of future prospect considering his age and settled principles in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case. Besides the aforesaid, Rs.3,00,000/- would be just for pains and suffers and loss of amenities to the appellant. The appellant would be entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- as medical expenses incurred by him. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case. Besides the aforesaid, Rs.3,00,000/- would be just for pains and suffers and loss of amenities to the appellant. The appellant would be entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- as medical expenses incurred by him. Non-production of vouchers would not mitigate the claim and the Court is competent to decide the just compensation considering the nature of injuries found by the doctor. Therefore, in my view, Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- for attendant would be just for the appellant. Besides the aforesaid the appellant is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/-for his future treatment and Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of expectation in life. Thus, the total payable compensation comes to Rs.16,85,000/-(in words Rupees Sixteen Lacs and Eighty Five Thousand only). The insurer is directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount alongwith interest of 9%. The insurer shall deduct already paid amount and this 9% interest would be payable on the remaining amount till its realization. 8. This appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.