Back
2000 Supreme(Raj) 753
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : J.C.VERMA
NORAT MAL - Appellant
Versus
LATUR LAL - Respondent
S. B. C. M. 469 Of 1994
Decided On : 10/12/2000
R.D.Rastogi, S.C.SRIVASTAVA, SANDIP MATHUR
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for personal injuries, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and the principles for determining the appropriate amount based on the claimant's specific circumstances.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents - Compensation - - M. A. C. T. Case no. 108 of 1989 - R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), Dr. Gop Ramchandani v. Onkar Singh, 1993 ACJ 577 (Rajasthan), Gandhari Ramesh v. Janardhan, 1999 ACJ 816 (AP), United india Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sirajuddin, 1999 ACJ 895 (Rajasthan )
Fact of the Case:
The claimant Norat Mal was seriously injured in a bus-truck collision and filed a claim application for compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000 as compensation, which the claimant challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant's earning capacity had been reduced by 50% due to the amputation of his right hand and that he had incurred significant medical expenses. The court referred to previous judgments to support the claimant's entitlement to higher compensation.
Issues: The issues included the assessment of compensation for the claimant's injuries and the apportionment of liability between the parties involved in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to establish the principles for assessing compensation, distinguishing between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It considered the claimant's reduced earning capacity and medical expenses in determining the appropriate compensation.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,10,000, to be paid by the parties according to their liability.
J. C. VERMA, J.
( 1 ) THE present misc. appeal has been preferred by the claimant norat Mal challenging the award dated 27. 1. 1994 passed by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Tonk in M. A. C. T. Case no. 108 of 1989.
( 2 ) THE claimant Norat Mal was seriously injured in the accident on 30. 3. 1989 when he was travelling in the bus No. 2996 from Deoli to Kekri; it had collided with a truck No. RSR 7077 near Negdia on Ajmer Road. The collision was so bad that even the bus had broken and separated into two parts. The claimant was injured and was rushed to the Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, where his hand had to be amputated for proper further treatment. The truck was owned by respondent No. 2 and respondent no. 3 was the insurer. The claimant filed claim application claiming Rs. 7,63,160.
( 3 ) THE necessary issues were framed in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation. The Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses and decided all issues in favour of the claimant. However, the amount of compensation was quantified up to Rs. 75,000 only. The claimant has challenged this part of the award.
( 4 ) THE claimant was 22 years of age at the time of accident and he was earning rs. 1,200 per month and had to support the family. His right hand had been amputated with permanent disablement to the extent of 50 per cent. The amputation was done to save him from further deterioration.
( 5 ) THE Tribunal vide impugned award dated 26/27. 1. 1994 had found composite negligence of both the defaulting vehicles and foisted the liability on insurance company of truck up to 2/3rd part and remaining 1/3rd liability has been foisted on the driver of the R. S. R. T. C. The Tribunal had held that even though no evidence has been produced so far as earnings of the injured is concerned, but for the reason that he was hospitalised and one arm had been amputated an amount of Rs. 75,000 has been held to be sufficient as compensation.
( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that there was no reason for the Tribunal for not awarding higher compensation on the ground that as income has been proved as there was no evidence contrary to that fact. In any case, it cannot be disputed that earning capacity of the appellant had been reduced to the extent of 50 per cent, if not more. Apart from the fact, the injured had suffered multiple injuries, remained hospitalised, had spent heavy amount for treatment and right hand had been amputated.
( 7 ) RELIANCE has been made on the Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh high Court in case of Gandhari Ramesh v. Janardhan, 1999 ACJ 816 (AP), and on a judgment of this court in case of United india Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sirajuddin, 1999 ACJ 895 (Rajasthan ).
( 8 ) IN case of Gandhari Ramesh, 1999 acj 816 (AP), the oil tanker had bumped against right side portion of bus coming from opposite direction resulting in severance of the right arm from the shoulder of a passenger in the bus. The Tribunal had held that the accident was caused due to composite negligence of both the drivers. The injured was 23 years old and was trained electrician. It was held that right hand had been amputated and the prospect of even going in for an artificial limb was bleak. The prospect of getting married and leading a normal family life had also become bleak. It was doubtful whether the injured can take up any other profitable employment with his left hand. The Tribunal had granted Rs. 1,33,000, which was enhanced to Rs. 3,66,000 by the High court. The accident had occurred in May, 1993.
( 9 ) IN case of United India Insurance co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 895 (Rajasthan), in case of amputation of left hand with 50 per cent permanent disablement, the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 had been awarded as nonpecuniary special damages apart from the medical expenses, etc. The accident was caused in March, 1994, between two trucks.
( 10 ) IN case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Supreme Court had
