High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dwarka Prasad
YASHWANT RAJ - Appellant
Versus
MOHAN LAL - Respondent
Civil Misc. First Appeal 7 Of 1973
Decided On : 03/30/1983
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110 - CLAIM PETITION - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - COMPENSATION - INTEREST - POWER OF TRIBUNAL TO AWARD INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, Yaswant Rai, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on May 29, 1968. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, seeking compensation for his injuries. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 2,700/-. The claimant appealed, contending that the amount awarded was inadequate. The owner of the truck involved in the accident and the driver filed cross-objections, disputing their liability for payment of compensation. The insurer of the truck also filed an appeal, disputing their liability for payment of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award compensation for damages to property, even though the claim was filed before the amendment of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which specifically included such claims within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The court also held that the claimant was entitled to interest on the amount of compensation awarded to him, even though there was no specific provision for such interest in the Motor Vehicles Act. The court enhanced the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant to Rs. 10,200/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award compensation for damages to property? 2. Whether the claimant was entitled to interest on the amount of compensation awarded to him?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award compensation for damages to property, even though the claim was filed before the amendment of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which specifically included such claims within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the Tribunal had the implied power to award interest on the amount of compensation, as this was incidental to its power to make an award in respect of compensation. 2. The court held that the claimant was entitled to interest on the amount of compensation awarded to him, even though there was no specific provision for such interest in the Motor Vehicles Act. The court reasoned that the claimant would have been entitled to the amount of compensation on the date of the application, although the amount was quantified on the date of the award. If a person is deprived of the amount of compensation for some time even after the award is delivered, then it would be just to compensate him for the loss caused to him on account of the delay in payment of the amount awarded to him by allowing interest on the amount of compensation.
Final Decision: The court enhanced the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant to Rs. 10,200/-.
DWARKA PRASAD, J.
( 1 ) YASWANT Rai was go-ing on a Motor-cycle from the Rich Court at Jodhpur towards Sojati Gate on May 29, 1968 at about 10. 30 A. M. and Ghewarchand was sitting behind him. As the Motor-cycle of Yeswant Raj was going on the main road towards Sojati Gate, truck No. RJQ 1688 driven by Vijaysingh struck against the motorcycle of Yaswant Raj from behind. As a result of the aforesaid collision Yaswant Raj and Ghewarchand were thrown off from the motor-cycle and lay unconscious at some distance, while the motor cycle itself was run over by the truck and was smashed. Yashwantrai and Ghewarchand were immediately taken in an Ambulance to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital and the condition of Yeshwantrai continued to be serious for a number of days. Yeshwantrai received six injuries as a result of the accident, including an abrasion 9 cm. x 1 cm. on the forehead on the left-side, iust above the eyebrow. On medical examination, it was found that he was semi-conscious and mental irritation was present. The Medical Jurist. who examined Yashwant Rai, advised that a dying declaration may be recorded when he recoverd consciousness and advised X-ray of the skull. The X-ray report showed a doubtful fracture in the left front parietal region in the tangential view Yeshwantrai is alleged to have remained unconscious or semi-conscious for about 15 days. He remained as an indoor patient in the hospital from May 29, 1968 to June 10, 1968 on account of head injury involving multiple fractures. Thereafter he remained at home and was under medical treatment for almost 3 months before he recovered.
( 2 ) A claim petition was filed by Yashwant Rai on July 26, 1968 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). A practice was in vogue with the Tribunal at that time that soon after a claim petition under Section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed the petitioner was examined by the Tribunal. It was represented on behalf of Yashwant on August 20, 1968 before the Tribunal that he was still suffering for head injury and was not in a position to appear before the Tribunal for a preliminary examination and on this ground an adjoumment was sought for recording his statement. Yashwant Rai appeared before the Tribunal on November 7, 1968 and his preliminary statement was recorded and then notices were issued to the respondents.
( 3 ) IN the claim petition, Yashwant Rai claimed a sum of Rs. 60,500/- by way of compensation. The details of his claim are as under:-
( 4 ) AFTER a trial, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1200/-on account of loss of earning and Rs. 1,500/- on account of mental shock, nervousness, physical pain and suffering, in all a sum of Rs. 2,700/-to the injured claimant. The remaining claim for compensation was not found proved. An award was passed by the Tribunal on February 25, 1972 for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,700/ -. against the owner of the truck, Mohanlal, the driver thereof Viiaysingh and the Insurer Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd.
( 5 ) THE claimant Yashwantrai has urged in this appeal that the Tribunal has awarded a very small amount to him by way of compensation. According to him the amount claimed by the injured in the claim petition should have been awarded. The owner of the Truck Mohanlal and the driver Vijaysingh have filed cross-objections and according to them the claimant was at fault and the accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent driving and as such the claimant was not entitled to any amount whatever. Another appeal has been filed by the Insurer, M/s. Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. , disputing their liability for payment of compensation, which has been allowed to the claimant.
( 6 ) I shall firstly take up the cross-objections preferred by the owner of the truck Mohanlal and the driver Vijaysingh, as they have disputed their liability for payment of any amount by way of compensation to the claimant and have asserted that no amount was pay
REFERRED TO : Dr. Om Prakash Mishra v. National Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Farsubhai Altaobhai Saiyed v. Dullabhai Bhagabhai Patel
State of Assam v. Urmila Datta
Dr. Achalmal Singhvi v. Chand Khan and Sons
Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt Ltd.
Firm Madan Lal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore
Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra Vohra
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mrs. Kamal Kamini Das
Swarnalata Dutta Barua v. National Transport India Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.