Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1450 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar, s/o. Shri Mohan Lal v. Narpat Lal, s/o Shri Bhanwar Lal

2024-10-21

NUPUR BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) 1. By way of these misc appeals, the appellants/claimants have challenged the judgment-cum-award dated 11.06.2014 passed by the learned MACT, Balotra in MAC Case No.173/2011, 158/2011 and 172/2011; whereby, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions of the appellants/claimants and the liability to pay the same was fastened upon the respondents jointly and severally. As these claim petitions arise from the same accident and were decided by common judgment and award, the same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.2011, claimant-Ashok along with his father claimant-Mohan Lal and Praveen (Son of Ashok), were travelling in the Alto Car bearing registration No.RJ-04-CA-0763 along with the Driver respondent No.1-Narpat lal. At night at about 12.30 am on Barmer-Jaisalmer Public Road near Nimbli, driver of the car dashed the said vehicle into a stationary Truck on the road and as a result whereof, son of the appellant namely Praveen died and the appellant-Ashok and his father appellant-Mohan lal, received grievous and simple injuries. 3. Claim petitions were filed by the appellants/claimants. Notices were issued and through the said notices, the respondents herein were summoned. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 submitted a reply while denying the averments made in the claim petition by the appellants. As per the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. Oral as well as documentary evidences were produced by the claimants in support of their claim petitions, however, no evidence was produced by the respondents before the learned tribunal. 4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal vide judgment-cum-award dated 11.06.2014, partly allowed the claim petitions of the claimants, awarded quantum of compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- in MAC case no.173/2011, Rs.6,75,260/- in MAC Case no.172/2011 and Rs.32,386/- in MAC case no.158/2011 in their favour and held respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in the respective claim petitions along with interest @9% p.a.. Aggrieved thereof, these misc. appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants/claimants. 5. Learned counsel representing the appellants in S.B. CMA No.671/2015, submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased son who was 7 years at the time of accident on the lower side and the same needs to be re-assessed. He also multiplier of the deceased-Praveen while calculating quantum of compensation and also. 6. 5. Learned counsel representing the appellants in S.B. CMA No.671/2015, submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased son who was 7 years at the time of accident on the lower side and the same needs to be re-assessed. He also multiplier of the deceased-Praveen while calculating quantum of compensation and also. 6. Learned counsel representing the appellants in S.B. CMA No.669/2015, submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in facts and Law of the case and awarded meager amount towards; Medical Expenditure incurred by the appellant during the treatment, Future Expenditure on treatment, Pain and Suffering, Special Diet and Transportation and not a single penny was being awarded towards; Loss of Income, Future Prospects and Permanent Disability. In this regard, he further submits that after the said accident took place, the appellant received grievous head injury and as a result whereof, the appellant went into coma and there was loss of memory. The Medical Board assessed the temporary Disability to the extent of 30% by issuing Medical Certificate (Exhibit-180), however, the learned Tribunal failed to take the said aspect into consideration and not a single penny was being awarded towards the head of Temporary Disability, therefore, the amount towards Temporary Disability deserves to be given. He also submits that the Ashok (Claimant) was hospitalized from 19.02.2011 to 28.03.2011, and for such period the learned tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of income. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as on today, the appellant is not in a position to do day to day work which also affected his running of business, as he was a Proprietor in Madhavi Agency at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Balotra and was 31 years of age at the time of accident, but the learned Tribunal neither looked into the facts and record of the case nor, has considered the evidence available on record and passed the impugned award. 7. Learned counsel in S.B. CMA No.670/2015, submits that the appellant herein was 65 years of age at the time of the accident. After the accident, the appellant was admitted in Government Nahata Hospital, Balotra where he remained for four days i.e. 19.02.2011 to 22.02.2011. 7. Learned counsel in S.B. CMA No.670/2015, submits that the appellant herein was 65 years of age at the time of the accident. After the accident, the appellant was admitted in Government Nahata Hospital, Balotra where he remained for four days i.e. 19.02.2011 to 22.02.2011. Medical Bills (Exhibits-20 to 43) of Rs.12,386/- were also submitted by the appellant but the learned Tribunal, despite perusing the said bills, awarded a consolidated amount to the tune of Rs.10,000/- which is too meager and thus, the same deserves to be enhanced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company opposes the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel and submits that there is no document on record, produced by the appellants, which shows that the appellants have suffered any loss of income. He, thus, submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the quantum of compensation in favour of the claimants and thus, the same does not warrants any interference. 9. After hearing the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that in S.B.CMA No.671/2015, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 7 years, the notional income of Rs.30,000/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal in awarding quantum of compensation which is just and thus, the same requires no interference. 10. In S.B.CMA No.669/2015, as far as the question of disability is concerned, it is seen that the Medical Certificate (Exhibit-180), was issued by the Medical Board which opined that the appellant is temporarily disabled which may or may not cure with time. However, the said opinion of the Medical Board, does not proves that the injured appellant-Ashok Kumar has suffered a permanent disability of 30%, therefore, the learned Tribunal is perfectly justified in not awarding any amount towards Temporary Disability and since no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of Temporary Disability, therefore, no amount is required to be awarded towards the head of Future Prospects. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants with respect to awarding amount towards; Loss of Future Prospects and towards; Permanent Disability, is having no merit. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants with respect to awarding amount towards; Loss of Future Prospects and towards; Permanent Disability, is having no merit. However, this Court finds compensation towards; Loss of Income and awarding a meager amount towards; Period of Hospitalization, deserves to be modified in light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. : [SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018] decided on 16.11.2022. It is evident from the material placed on record that the Ashok (claimant) remained hospitalized from 19.02.2011 to 28.03.2011 (37 days), thus, loss of income during the treatment/hospitalization for 37 days should be awarded to the claimant. Thus, this court, in facts and circumstances of the present case, deems it appropriate to award loss of income @Rs.700 for the period of hospitalization and also Rs.300 per day for the period of hospitalization. 11. Furthermore, in S.B.CMA No.670/2015, quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards; injuries sustained by Mohanlal (claimant), also deserves to be enhanced. Thus, this court deems appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- for the one grievous injury and Rs.3500/- for one simple injury in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sidram(Supra). Also, loss of income @Rs.700 per day is also awardable to Mohanlal (claimant) for for the period of hospitalization 19.02.2011 to 22.02.2011 (4 days). Thus, the compensation awardable to Ashok (claimant) and Mohanlal(claimant) in their respective appeals are as under in a Tabular Form: (SBCMA No.669/2015):- PARTICULARS Awarded by learned Tribunal Enhanced/ Modified by this Court Loss of income during treatment (700 x 37) NIL Rs.25,900/- Grievous Injury (Head Injury) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- (Same as awarded by the learned Tribunal) Attendant charges; (Rs.300/- x 37) NIL Rs.11,100/- Medical Expenses Rs.4,75,260/- Rs.4,75,260/- (Same as awarded by the learned Tribunal) Pain & Sufferings + Nourishing Diet + Transporation Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- (Same as awarded by learned Tribunal.) TOTAL Rs.6,75,260/ Rs.7,12,260/- ENHANCED AWARD (Rs.7,12,260/- minus Rs.6,75,260/-) Rs.37,000/- (SBCMA No.670/2015) PARTICULARS Awarded by learned Tribunal Enhanced/ Modified by this Court Loss of income during treatment (Rs.700/- x 4) NIL 2,800/- Grievous Injury Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- Simple Injury Nil Rs.3,500/- Attendant charges; (Rs.300/- x 4) Nil Rs.1,200/- Medical Expenses Rs.12,386/- Rs.12,386/- (same as awarded by the tribunal) Pain & Sufferings + Nourishing Diet + Transporation etc. Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- (same as awarded by the tribunal) TOTAL Rs.32,386/- Rs.54,886/- ENHANCED AWARD (Rs.54,886/- minus Rs.32,386/-) Rs.22,500/- 12. Consequently, the misc. appeal being SBCMA No.671/2015 is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. So far as the misc. appeals being SBCMAs Nos. 669/2015 and 670/2015 are concerned, the same are partly allowed. The judgment-cum-award dated 11.06.2015 passed by the learned MACT, Balotra to the extent of MAC Cases Nos.158/2011 and 172/2011; is enhanced/modified in the terms stated above. The claimants are thus, held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.37,000/-(SBCMA No.669/2015) and Rs.22,500/- (SBCMA No.670/2015) from the respondents/non-claimants, jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Any amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted accordingly. 13. No order as to costs. 14. A copy of this order be placed in each file.