2013 Supreme(Raj) 923
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Amarchand Kukar - Appellant
Versus
Mahaveer Dass and ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 574 of 2005.
Decided On : 5-03-2013
Advocates:
For the Appellant:N.L. Joshi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:U.C.S. Sanghvi, Advocate.
The court held that a claimant in a motor accident case is entitled to compensation for injuries suffered as a result of the accident, including medical expenses and loss of income.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 173 - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - INJURED CLAIMANT - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - LOSS OF INCOME - TREATMENT COSTS - APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an advocate, was injured in a road accident caused by the respondent's rash and negligent driving. He filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which awarded him Rs. 24,000. The appellant appealed, arguing that the compensation was inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had erred in its finding that there was no connection between the accident and the appellant's ACL Tear, which was a result of the injury suffered in the accident. The court also found that the Tribunal had not awarded adequate compensation for the appellant's treatment and loss of income.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that there was no connection between the accident and the appellant's ACL Tear? 2. Whether the Tribunal awarded adequate compensation for the appellant's treatment and loss of income?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal's finding that there was no connection between the accident and the appellant's ACL Tear was perverse, as the appellant had produced ample medical evidence to establish the connection. 2. The court held that the Tribunal had not awarded adequate compensation for the appellant's treatment and loss of income, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 75,000.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation awarded to the appellant was enhanced to Rs. 75,000.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar ('the Tribunal') vide judgment and award dated 23.02.2005, whereby, he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal, inter alia, with the averments that he was going by Car from Bikaner to Anupgarh on 17.10.2000 when at around 09:30 PM near Shobhasar, the respondent No.1 driver, driving the Jeep No.RJ07-P-1027 rashly and negligently collided with the said Car, which resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant; he was aged 45 years and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month by practicing as an Advocate. He suffered injuries on both hands and both legs, which has resulted in permanent disablement and he has spent Rs. 50,000/- in the treatment and claimed a compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/-.
3. The owner and driver of the vehicle were proceeded ex parte as despite service by publication, they failed to appear before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company filed its reply denying all the material averments and prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. The Tribunal framed three issues. On behalf of the claimant four witnesses were examined including Dr.Rajendra Sethiya as AW-4 and 30 documents were exhibited. The Insurance Company produced insurance policy and the same was marked as Exhibit-A/1.
5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, which resulted in the accident and consequent injuries to the appellant and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,000/-.
6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that despite producing sufficient documentary and oral evidence including the oral evidence of Dr. Sethiya, who had treated the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount by ignoring the said evidence and the appellant was entitled to just compensation.
7. The learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has thoroughly examined the evidence and the award impugned does not call for any interference.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the record of the case.
9. The Tribunal has refused compensation to the appellant on account of its findings that the appellant had not produced any medical certificate regarding any grievous injury. Regarding the appellant's primary grievance regarding 'ACL Tear', which has been understood as 'Ligament Leak' in his left knee requiring surgery, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is no direct connection between the injuries suffered in the accident and the ACL Tear and the problem to the claimant has arisen on account of his age.
10. The finding on the connection between the injuries suffered on account of the accident and the ACL Tear in the left knee of the appellant recorded by the Tribunal is clearly perverse.
11. The appellant has placed on record various prescriptions of hospitals situated at Sri Ganganagar (Exhibit-16), Bikaner (Exhibit-21), Hisar (Exhibit-22), Sirsa (Exhibit-23) and Apollo Hospital, Delhi (Exhibit-24) for his ailment 'ACL Tear' and in almost all the prescriptions, the reason indicated is the injury suffered by him, which injury necessarily is on account of the accident, which occurred on 17.10.2000. The appellant has also produced the medical certificate Exhibit-18 issued by the Medical Officer Incharge, which also clearly shows ACL Tear in its report. The statement of Dr. Rajendra Sethiya AW-4 is clearly supportive of the claim of appellant regarding the injury suffered by him in the accident, which has resulted in ACL Tear. The statement of Dr. Sethiya AW-4 that normally the ACL Tear takes place after the age of 60 years when it happens on account
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
