Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
P.K. Lohra, J.
Pitambar Das – Appellant
Vs.
Rakesh Kumar – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2493 of 2011
Decided On : 20-09-2018
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A,166 and 173 – Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 2(1)(i) & 4 (1)(c)(ii) – Appellant-Claimant feeling dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Tribunal found both vehicles evenly negligent for accident, and adequacy of compensation awarded – Appellant craved for adjudging both vehicles compositely negligent for cause of accident and enhancement of compensation commensurating with injuries suffered by him – Held, Regarding pain & sufferings, protracted treatment of appellant deserves due consideration statements of appellant, treatment continued for almost three years is clearly discernible therefore his pains, sufferings and agony during this period cannot overlooked – Tribunal not given any credence to uncontroverted statements of appellant on this aspect – Grievance of appellant regarding rate of interest on compensation amount – Rate of interest on compensation amount determined and allowed by Tribunal is inadequate same liable to be enhanced to 7.5% per annum and appellant is declared entitled for aforementioned rate of interest on enhanced amount of compensation from date of filing of claim petition and enhanced amount of interest arrears on amount quantified and awarded by Tribunal – Directions issued – Appeal Partly allowed – (Paras: 22 and 25 )
Facts of the case:
Appellant-Claimant feeling dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Tribunal found both vehicles evenly negligent for accident, and adequacy of compensation awarded – Appellant craved for adjudging both vehicles compositely negligent for cause of accident and enhancement of compensation commensurating with injuries suffered by him.
Findings of the court;
Regarding pain & sufferings, protracted treatment of appellant deserves due consideration statements of appellant, treatment continued for almost three years is clearly discernible therefore his pains, sufferings and agony during this period cannot overlooked – Tribunal not given any credence to uncontroverted statements of appellant on this aspect – Grievance of appellant regarding rate of interest on compensation amount – Rate of interest on compensation amount determined and allowed by Tribunal is inadequate same liable to be enhanced to 7.5% per annum and appellant is declared entitled for aforementioned rate of interest on enhanced amount of compensation from date of filing of claim petition and enhanced amount of interest arrears on amount quantified and awarded by Tribunal – Directions issued.
Result: Appeal Partly allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appellant-claimant was dissatisfied with the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which found both vehicles equally negligent and awarded compensation deemed inadequate (!) (!) .
The accident involved two buses, resulting in severe injuries to the appellant, including fractures and head injuries, and the appellant claimed a substantial amount of compensation for various heads, including pain, suffering, and loss of income (!) (!) .
The insurer contested the claim, denying liability and challenging the maintainability of the petition on grounds such as the accident’s cause, the validity of medical evidence, and the adequacy of proof for permanent disability (!) (!) .
The tribunal found both drivers equally negligent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,54,300, with liability joint and several, and awarded interest at 6% per annum (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that the compensation was insufficient, particularly for permanent disablement, pain and suffering, and the protracted treatment period, and sought enhancement of compensation and interest rate (!) (!) .
The appellant relied on medical evidence, including a disability certificate indicating 75% disability, but the tribunal disbelieved the xerox copy due to its origin and lack of examination of the issuing doctor (!) (!) .
The court considered the provisions of relevant statutes, including the Second Schedule of the applicable Act and principles from established legal methods, to determine appropriate compensation, including applying the multiplier method and considering the assessment of permanent partial disability (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that medical certificates issued by qualified practitioners, even if xerox copies, should not be outrightly discarded if properly marked and supported by other evidence, especially when issued by a Medical Board or a qualified doctor (!) (!) .
The court found that the appellant suffered a 50% permanent partial disability based on available evidence, including MRI and medical reports, and awarded additional compensation accordingly (!) (!) .
The court also recognized the need to compensate for pain and suffering, considering the prolonged treatment period, and quantified an appropriate sum for such damages (!) (!) .
The court held that in cases of joint and several liability, the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors, and apportionment between them is not permissible unless they are impleaded and evidence is available (!) .
The appellant’s grievance regarding the rate of interest was accepted, and the court increased the rate to 7.5% per annum, directing the respondents to pay the enhanced interest from the date of filing the claim petition (!) (!) .
The appeal was partly allowed, with directions for enhanced compensation and interest, and for the respondents to pay their respective shares accordingly (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal findings, the evidence considerations, and the court’s approach to assessing damages and liabilities in this case.
P.K. Lohra, J.
Appellant-Claimant feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 4th of April, 2006 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (for short, 'learned Tribunal), has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act').
2. Cause of grievance against the impugned judgment and award projected by the appellant is two-folds; which are findings on issue No.1 to the extent learned Tribunal has found both the vehicles evenly negligent for the accident, and adequacy of compensation awarded. In substance, appellant has craved for adjudging both the vehicles compositely negligent for the cause of accident and enhancement of compensation commensurating with the injuries suffered by him.
3. Brief facts are that on 22.08.2002 appellant was travelling in the bus hired on contract by the Rajasthan State Road Corporation bearing No.RJ-14-P-2000 from Jaipur, and while it was on its way towards Beawar-Ajmer, in the night at about 12 PM, head on collision took place with another bus of the Corporation bearing No.RJ-27-P-4112 of Udaipur depot coming from opposite direction near Beawar and in the accident besides others, appellant also sustained grievious injuries including fractures of hands and backbone besides severe head injuries. As per version of the appellant, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles by their drivers besides inapt handing of vehicles. A report of the said accident was lodged at Police Station, Beawar and after investigation, chargesheet against drivers of both the vehicles was filed in the concerned criminal court. Appellant, in his claim petition, in all, under different heads, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 34,60,000/-, jointly and severally from the respondents.
4. The claim petition was contested by insurer respondent No.3. Respondent Insurer, in its reply, denied most of the averments in toto. It is further submitted by the insurer that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation vehicle and not the insured vehicle. Maintainability of the claim is also challenged by the insurer on the anvil of territorial jurisdiction. Adverting to quantum of compensation claimed by the appellant, for loss of future income it is specifically pleaded by the insurer in return that he has not produced any documentary evidence to show impairment in earning capacity. Yet another objection was raised on behalf of insurer to dispute appellant's permanent disability in absence of requisite medical certificate. The insurer has also alleged in the reply that appellant has claimed exorbitant compensation, which is not tenable. Some of the specific objections are also incorporated in the reply on behalf of insurer, viz., insured is required to prove fitness of vehicle, requisite permit and valid driving licence of its driver for fastening liability to pay compensation. That apart, factum of insured vehicle being hired on contract by the Corporation is also cited as reason by the insurer for its immunity to pay compensation. By narrating all these facts, the insurer pleaded for rejection of the claim petition.
5. Respondent Corporation also joined issue with the appellant and contested the claim. In its reply, respondent Corporation refuted all the averments of claim petition for want of knowledge. It is further stated in the reply that appellant suffered minor injuries due to accident, and therefore, he is not entitled for an embellished claim under different heads. Denying rash and negligent driving by its driver, in the return, it took a stand that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of other vehicle bearing No. RJ-14-P-2000. With these positive assertions, the Corporation craved for rejection of the claim petition.
6. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled three issues for dete
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
