Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 200
2011(2) CCR 1038 (Raj.)
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Bodanram @ Bondanlal Yadav Vs. Kishan Lal (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Bodanram @ Bondanlal Yadav
Versus
Kishan Lal & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 907 of 2008, decided on 10.03.2011
R.S. Sharma, for Appellant;
N.L. Verma, for New Assurance Co. Ltd.
POINT DECIDED
57 year old police man drawing salary of Rs. 11,558/-, suffered 33.8% permanent disability — Multiplier of 8 applied as per Second Schedule of the Act.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 142, 163(3), 168 & 173 — Compensation — Truck hit the jeep from behind — Injuries to 57 years police personel who was getting Rs. 11,558/- monthly salary — 33.08% permanent disability — Finding of tribunal — Appeal for enhancement — Held — Claimant gave duty as police man as usual — Claimant remained on leave for 339 days for which Rs. 1,06,107/- awarded as per rules — Multiplier of 8 applied as per second schedule looking to age of claimant and Rs. 48,000/- awarded for disablement — Rs. 39,517 awarded as per produced medical expenses bill and Rs. 15000/- for three grievous and Rs. 1000/- for one simple injury — Finding of tribunal cannot be said unjustified — Award confirmed — Claimant is not entitled for any further compensation. (Paras 10 & 11)
Appeal rejected.
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 142] 163¼3½] 168 ,oa 173 & izfrdj & Vªd us thi dks ihNs ls VDdj ekjh & 11]558@- #i;s ekfld osru izkIr djus okys 57 o"khZ; iqfyl deZpkjh dks pksVsa & 33-08% LFkk;h fu%'kDrrk & vf/kdj.k dk fu"d"kZ & vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & nkosnkj iqfyl ds :i esa mlh izdkj drZO; fuHkkrk jgk & nkosnkj 339 fnu vodk'k ij jgk ftlds fy, 1]06]107@- #i;s fu;e ds vuqlkj vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s x;s & nkosnkj dh vk;q dks ns[krs gq, f}rh; vuqlwph ds vuqlkj 8 dk xq.kd iz;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj fu%'kDrrk gsrq 48]000@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s x;s & izLrqr fpfdRlk O;; fcy ds vuqlkj 39]517@- #i;s vkSj rhu xaHkhj pksVsa gsrq 15]000@- #i;s ,oa ,d ljy pksV gsrq 1000@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & vf/kdj.k dk fu"d"kZ vU;k;ksfpr ugha dgk tk ldrk & vf/kfu.kZ; iq"V fd;k & nkosnkj dksbZ iqu% izfrdj gsrq gdnkj ugha gSA ¼in la[;k 10 ,oa 11½
vihy fujLr dhA
2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
3. The facts in brief are that the claimant was travelling in the jeep bearing No. RJ 02 C 3697 along with Head Constable Mangeram, Constable Banwari Lal, all were going from Police Station Shahjahanpur to Neemrana at night on patrolling. At about 12.12 a.m. when the jeep was passing through near National Highway No.8 Janaksinghpura a Truck bearing registration No. HR 55 B 7071 was driven with great negligently and rashly at very high speed and suddenly the truck hit the jeep from back side in which all the policemen were injured and the petitioner got seriously in the accident. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Shahjahanpur for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC which was registered as FIR No. 1 was driver of the vehicle in question, the respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle, the respondent No.3 was the insurer of the Truck bearing registration No. HR 55 B 7071. At the time of accident the petitioner was working in the police department and due to the accident he got 33.08% permanent disability and he is not in a condition to do work as he was doing before the accident.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed reply to the claim petition in which their main objection is that the accident was held due to his own negligence and they are not liable for the accident. The respondent No.3 filed its reply in which it was mentioned that the said accident was occurred due to his own negligence, besides this the driver of the vehicle had no valid license at the time of the accident and therefore their liability was ended and the claim is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimant petitioner Bodanram was examined as AW-1 and one Banwarilal as AW-2 and he has also produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.118 in support of his claim. The respondents did not submit any document or any evidence against the claim.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties the MACT vide its award dated 19.9.2007 allowed compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,09,624/- to the claimant. Now the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT failed to assess the right amount of compensation as the petitioner was in police department and his salary was Rs. 11,558/- per month but due to accident he was not able to work properly and he has lost the further chances of the promotions as well as increase in the salary. The MACT has assessed his salary as Rs. 9382/- per month while he was getting Rs. 11,558/- per month and spent more than Rs. 1,50,000/- in treatment. Due to accident the claimant sustained various grievous injuries including fracture and has become 30.08% permanent disabled. The MACT awarded a meager amount of compensation i.e. only Rs. 48,000/- by using the multiplier of 8 as compensation. The MACT failed to consider the non-pecuniary damages which were sustained by the claimant due to the accident. The MACT has committed an error in awarding the interest @ 6% p.a. which is on lower side where it ought to have been at least 18% p.m.
8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the award passed by the MACT is just and proper. The findings of the MACT show that on all count the MACT has awarded a sums of Rs. 2,09,624/- which cannot be said to be unjustified. The claimant is not entitled for any further enhancement in the compensation. The interest @ 6% was rightly granted. The appeal filed by the claimant deserves to be rejected.
9. The MACT on issue No.2 has given
