Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
RAMESHWAR VYAS, J.
Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 93 of 2019 Connected With S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3153 of 2018
Decided on : 15-07-2022
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - 10.08.2018 - The court discussed the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8981/2010) and their application in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded compensation in favor of the claimant, which was challenged by the Insurance Company seeking reduction, and by the claimant seeking enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal's approach in relying on the evidence of the claimant without analyzing it was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal failed to ascertain the effect and impact of the alleged permanent disability on the earning capacity of the claimant and did not follow the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of compensation amount based on the claimant's injuries and their impact on his earning capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the claim petition afresh in light of the observations made by the court and the law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount was disposed of with the observation that he would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy after the fresh award.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount was disposed of with the observation that he could avail appropriate remedy after the fresh award.
JUDGMENT :
1. The aforesaid two appeals have arisen from a judgment and award dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in M.A.C.T. Case No. 39/2016 (C.I.S. No. 40/2016) titled as "Rajesh v. Mohanlal & Anr.", whereby Tribunal while allowing claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,88,552/- as compensation in favour of the appellant-claimant in CMA No. 93/2019.
2. CMA No. 93/2019 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, whereas, CMA No. 3153/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Tribunal on various grounds.
3. Brief facts of the case are that claimant Rajesh, who sustained injuries in a road accident, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred to as "Act of 1988") against driver-cum-owner of the offending Car and insurer with the averments that on 25.03.2016 at about 9.00 P.M., claimant on his motorcycle was coming from village Sandia towards Sojat City. During that, on highway near Mod Bhatta, a Car bearing registration No. RJ-22-CA-8636, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side and rammed into the Motorcycle, on account of which, Rajesh sustained various injuries on his body. The report of the accident was lodged by one Bhanwar Lal on 27.03.2016, upon which, FIR No. 92/2016 was registered. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the Driver of the Car.
4. It was averred in the claim petition that Rajesh was aged about 25 years at the time of accident; he was Driver by profession and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He sustained grievous injuries on his head and on right side of body i.e. leg, shoulder, ribs etc. The claimant also suffered paralytic attack in his right hand. He remained admitted for treatment in Mathura Das Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur from 25.03.2016 to 12.04.2016. Afterwards, he was referred for further treatment, upon which, he remained admitted in N.M. Virani Wockhardt Hospital, Rajkot (Gujarat) from 13.04.2016 to 28.04.2016. Thereafter, he was again treated in Mathura Das Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur from 29.04.2016 to 02.05.2016. He was also treated in Ramsnehi Hospital, Bhilwara from 13.06.2016 to 20.06.2016. He was also operated upon for fracture sustained by him. It was further averred that he was earning his livelihood by driving vehicle Pickup but on account of injuries, he is not able to do driving work. After accident, he is not able to earn more than Rs.2000/- per month. He claimed a sum of Rs.70,72,000/- as compensation for the injuries caused to him in the accident.
5. In reply to the claim petition, Insurance Company denied the fact of rash and negligence on the part of Driver of the insured vehicle. The fact of disability caused to the claimant was also denied. However, it was admitted that insurance of offending Car in the name of Mohan Lal was in existence during the period 10.04.2015 to 09.04.2016.
6. The driver-cum-owner of the vehicle also filed separate reply and denied rash and negligence on his part.
7. After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed by the Tribunal. During enquiry, claimant Rajesh himself was produced in the witness box as AW-1. Bhanwar Lal, who lodged the FIR, was produced as AW-2. Ramesh (AW-3) was produced as eye-witness. The non-claimants did not choose to adduce any evidence in rebuttal. During enquiry, police documents including charge-sheet were exhibited as Ex.1 to Ex.19 and documents relating to treatment were exhibited as Ex.20 to Ex.245 including the Disability Certificate as Ex.190.
8. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence, while allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.20,88,552/- as compensation in favour of the claimant under various heads vide award dated 10.08.2018.
9. Aggrieved with impugned award, non-claimant National Insurance Company has filed the appeal under Section 173 of the Act of 1988, which was registered as S.B.
The court emphasized the need to ascertain the effect and impact of permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity and highlighted the importance of following the principles enunciated by th....
The court established that permanent disability due to amputation warrants a 100% loss of earning capacity, justifying enhanced compensation.
The main legal point established is that the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases should consider the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity, and the percenta....
Permanent disability must be assessed concerning its actual impact on earning capacity, rather than a mechanical application of percentages.
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
