SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Raj) 54

2012(1) CCR 155 (Raj.)
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Virendra Singh (Shri) Vs. Ramdhan & Ors. (Bhagwati, J.)
HON'BLE MAHESH BHAGWATI, J.
Virendra Singh (Shri)
Versus
Ramdhan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5499 of 2011, decided on 09.01.2012

Advocates Appeared
S.K. Tiwari, for Appellant

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act,1988, Sec. 166 — Appellant was cleaner — Hit by a jeep — Sustained simple and grievous injuries including fracture on his leg — Claimed his monthly income to be Rs. 3000/- — In absence of proof of income Tribunal considered the minimum wages i.e. 73/- per day — The tribunal awarding Rs. 3000/- for each of the three simple injuries and Rs. 5000/- for one grievous injury computed the amount of compensation as Rs. 48,500/- — Held — Tribunal in absence of evidence of income rightly considered the minimum wages to be his income and reckoned the amount of compensation in accordance with settled principles. (Paras 5, 6)

       eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 166 & vihykFkhZ ,d [kyklh Fkk & thi us VDdj ekjh & iSj ds QzSDpj lfgr lk/kkj.k o xaHkhj {kfr;ka igqaph& 3000@- #- ekfld vk; gksus dk nkok fd;k & vk; ds izek.k ds vHkko esa vf/kdj.k us U;wure etnwjh vFkkZr~ 73@- #- izfr fnu ekuh & vf/kdj.k us izR;sd lk/kkj.k {kfr ds fy, rhu gtkj #i;s rFkk ,d xaHkhj {kfr ds fy, 5000@- #- ds fglkc ls 48]500@-#- izfrdj dh jkf'k dh x.kuk dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vk; ds lk{; ds vHkko esa vf/kdj.k }kjk mldh vk; U;wure etnwjh gksuk ekuuk rFkk LFkkfir fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj izfrdj dh jkf'k dh x.kuk djuk lgh FkkA ¼in la[;k 5] 6½

       vihy izkjEHk ls gh [kkfjt dhA

       

Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 17th April, 2006 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrod decreed an amount of Rs.48,500/- in favour of the appellant-claimant-Virendra Singh and against the respondents-non-claimants.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned judgment, it is noticed that on 18th January, 2004, at about 3.00 PM the appellant-claimant-Virendra Singh was coming and when he reached near Kheda Choudhary Hotel, one Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-06-C-7899 suddenly came and wrongly hit the claimant as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his person.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the appellant was a cleaner and his monthly income was Rs.3,000/- per month on the date of occurrence but the learned Tribunal is found to have considered the minimum wages i.e. Rs.73/- per day, permissible on that day.

4. Learned counsel further canvassed that the appellant not only sustained simple injuries but sustained fracture on his leg also as a result of which he was not able to perform his routine functions as usual. The learned Tribunal did not consider all these aspects while deciding the claim petition, hence, keeping in view the insufficient amount of compensation, the same should be enhanced and an appropriate award may be passed.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award, it is found that the appellant has not produced any evidence so as prove Rs.3000/- to be the monthly income of the appellant, which he is found to have claimed in the claim petition. Since the appellant utterly failed to prove the said income so claimed by him, the learned Tribunal considered the minimum wages to be his income and reckoned the amount of compensation in accordance with the settled principles in this regard. The appellant is found to have sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury and the learned Tribunal is found to have awarded Rs.3,000/- for thee simple injuries and Rs.5,000/- for one grievous injury. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstance in totality, the learned Tribunal is found to have rightly computed the amount of compensation and the total amount of Rs.48,500/- is found to be sufficient and apt in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order award is just and suffers from no infirmity. In contra, the appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed in limine.





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top