2012 Supreme(Raj) 1983
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Sugni Devi - Appellant
Versus
Dhanna Ram & Ors. - Respondent
S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 1656, 1635,1645, 1646, 1676 of 2005 and 351 of 2011.
Decided On : 17-08-2012
For the Appellant:Anshul Sharma, L. P. Singhal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Virendra Agarwal, P. S. Arya, J. K. Singhi, Tej Prakash Sharma, N. L. Verma, Dinesh Kala, J. P. Gupta, Advocates.
The assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, considering factors such as the nature and extent of injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of income, and permanent disability. The compensation awarded should be just, fair, and reasonable, avoiding arbitrariness and whims.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - INJURIES SUSTAINED - ASSESSMENT - PRINCIPLES: 1. The compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident should be just, fair, and reasonable, considering the nature and extent of injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of income, and permanent disability. 2. The amount of compensation cannot be a windfall for the victim but should not be a pittance either. It should be determined judiciously, avoiding arbitrariness and whims. 3. The assessment of compensation should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, considering factors such as the number and nature of injuries, the duration of hospitalization, medical expenses incurred, loss of income, and permanent disability. 4. In cases involving grievous fractures, permanent disability, or prolonged hospitalization, the compensation awarded should be higher to provide adequate relief to the victim. 5. However, if the compensation awarded by the MACT is found to be just and reasonable, considering the nature of injuries and other relevant factors, the appellate court may not interfere with the award.
Fact of the Case:
Multiple claimants filed appeals challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation, alleging that the amounts awarded were inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the nature and extent of injuries sustained by each claimant, considering medical records, injury reports, and other evidence. It also took into account factors such as hospitalization, medical expenses, loss of income, and permanent disability.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT was just, fair, and reasonable in each case. 2. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation considering the severity of their injuries and other relevant factors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation awarded by the MACT was just, fair, and reasonable in each case. It found that the MACT had duly considered the nature and extent of injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of income, and permanent disability while determining the compensation. The court emphasized that the assessment of compensation should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and that the amount awarded should not be a windfall for the victim but should also not be a pittance. The court noted that in cases involving grievous fractures, permanent disability, or prolonged hospitalization, the compensation awarded should be higher to provide adequate relief to the victim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all appeals filed by the claimants, upholding the compensation awarded by the MACT. It found that the MACT had duly considered all relevant factors and had awarded just and reasonable compensation in each case.
JUDGMENT
1. - The above mentioned six appeals have been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the common award dated 16-3-2005 of the Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Beawar and Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Beawar Distt. Ajmer (in short MACT) in claim Cases No. 85/2004 (old No. 140/97), 106/2004 (old No. 127/97), 104/ 2004 (old No. 82/97, 98/2004 (old No. 73/ 97), 1/2005 (old No. 70/97), and 94/2004 (old No. 52/97) awarding Rs. 1,000/- to the claimant Basanti (appeal No. 351/2011), Rs. 35,000/- to the claimant Sampati (appeal No. 1676/05), Rs. 15,200/- to the claimant Deepak Kumar (appeal No. 1646/2005), Rs. 17,000/- to the claimant Smt. Lata (appeal No. 1645/2005), Rs. 17,000/- to the claimant Kumari Sunita (appeal No. 1635/2005), Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant Sugni Devi (appeal No. 1656/2005) for enhancing the compensation awarded by the MACT. Since all six appeals arise from a common award, it will be proper for this Court to decide the appeals by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petitions before the MACT for the loss suffered by them due to the injuries sustained in the accident which allegedly took place on 2-9-96 between the bus No. RJ 19 P. 1767 which was going to Jodhpur and Bus No. RJ 01 P 0659 which was going to Ramdevra. As a result of the accident the claimants sustained various injuries on the various parts of the bodies. The said accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both the buses. At the time of the accident the respondents 1, 2, and 3 were the driver, owner and insurer of the bus No. RJP 19 P-1767 and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were owner and insurer of another bus. FIR to the incident was lodged at police Station Pokran bearing FIR No. 149/1996 in which after investigation the investigation agency filed the charge-sheet against the respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and 2/181 and 134/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the driver of the bus No. RJ 01 P 0659 namely Habib Mohd. died. Notice of the claim petitions were issued to the respondents and respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte hence the order to proceed ex parte was passed against them and the respondent No.3 filed written statement to the claim petitions and denied the averments made by the claimants. The respondent No.4 did not care to file written statement and the respondent No.5 filed written statement to the claim petition and denied the averments made by the claimants. On the basis of the pleadings the MACT framed as many as 6 issues and recorded the evidence adduced by the parties. Various oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. After hearing the counsel for the parties the MACT was pleased to decide the claim petitions vide its common award dated 16-3-3005. The claimants were awarded compensation as mentioned above. For enhancement of compensation they have preferred the above appeals.
3. It may be mentioned that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble R.S. Chauhan, J.) in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1642 of 2005 decided on 28-3-2006 and S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1638/2005 decided on 7-3-2006 rejected the appeals against the common award dated 16-3-2005 passed by the MACT Bewar filed by Meghraj (Claim Case No. 101/2004) and Bajja Ram (Claim Case No. 93/2004), and refused to enhance the claim amount.
4. In Appeal No. 1644 of 2005 against the common award dated 16-3-2005 the coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble R. C. Gandhi, J.) rejected the appeal by the order dated 8-3-2007 in claim case No. 100/2004 filed by Sint. Leelawati and refused to enhance the claim amount.
5. In Appeal No. 1723 of 2005 against the common award dated 16-3-2005 the coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble P. S. Asopa, J.) rejected the appeal by the order dated 16-10-2006 in claim case No. 5/2005 filed by Nootan and refused to enhance the claim amount.
6. In Ap
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
