Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 488
2009(2) CCR 1244 (Raj.)
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Kartar Singh Vs. Raghuveer Prasad Sharma & Ors. (Chaudhari, J.)
HON'BLE K.S. CHAUDHARI, J.
Kartar Singh
Versus
Raghuveer Prasad Sharma & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 521 & 522 of 2000, decided on 27.03.2009
Sandeep Mathur, for Appellants;
Virendra Agarwal, for New India Assuarance Company;
None present for Non-petitioner No.1 and 2
Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 173 — Appeal for enhancement of compensation — Jeep hit to Scooter — Injury matter — Injured do work of loading and unloading truck as labourer — 50% disability — Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,06,622/- as compensation — Held — It is clear from discharge ticket that right leg was amputed below knee — Percentage of loss of earning capacity will be 50% — Multiplier of 17 should be applied looking to the age of appellant — Looking to the work of appellant, income of Rs. 2000/- per month should be assessed — Loss of earning comes to Rs. 2,04,000/- — Rs. 1,16,622/- also awarded in other — Appellant is entitled to get Rs. 3,20,622/- as compensation — (Paras 5 & 6)
¼d½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 173 & izfrdj dh vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & thi LdwVj dks VDdj ekjh & pksfVy ekeyk & vkgr Jfed ds :i esa Vªd ynkbZ ,oa [kkyh djus dk dk;Z djrk Fkk & 50% fu%kDrrk & vf/kdj.k us izfrdj ds :i esa 2]06]622@& #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fMlpktZ fVdV ls ;g Li"V gS fd nk;k iSj ?kqVus ds uhps foPNsn gqvk & miktZu {kerk dh gkfu dk izfrkrrk 50% gksxk & vihykFkhZ dh vk;q dks ns[krs gq, 17 dk xq.kd iz;qDr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s & vihykFkhZ ds dk;Z dks ns[krs gq, ekfld vk; 2000@& :i;s fu/kkZfjr gksuk pkfg;s & miktZu dh gkfu 2]04]000@& #i;s vkrh gS & 1]16]622@& #i;s vU; en esa Hkh vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & vihykFkhZ izfrdj ds :i esa 3]20]622@& #i;s izkIr djus dk gdnkj gS & vf/kfu.kZ; rnuqlkj mikUrfjr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 5 o 6½
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 173 — Appeal for enhancement — Injury matter — Disability — Assessment of percentage — Plea that on the basis of aggregate formula disability was assessed 33.22% — Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,06,000/- as compensation — Appellant claimed earning Rs. 2,500/- per month as driver — Held — Looking to the detailed statement, it cannot be presumed that injured had mental retardation to the extent of 25% — Injured not produced driving licence to prove driving jeep and not disclosed the name of employer — Disability assessed 20% and earning assessed Rs. 2,000/- monthly — Looking to the earning, age and disability, appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,30,600/- as compensation — Award modified accordingly. (Para 8)
¼[k½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 173 & vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & pksfVy ekeyk & fu%kDrrk & izfrkrrk dk fu/kkZj.k & vfHkokd fd ladfyr lw= ds vk/kkj ij fu%kDrrk 33-22% fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k Fkk & vf/kdj.k us izfrdj ds :i esa 1]06]000@& #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & vihykFkhZ us pkyd ds :i esa 2500@& #i;s ekfld miktZu dk nkok fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & foLr`r dFku dks ns[krs gq, ;g mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrh fd vkgr dks 25% dh foLrkj rd ekufld :dkoV gks x;h & vkgr us thi pykus dks lkfcr djus gsrq pkyu vuqKfIr izLrqr ugha fd;k vkSj u gh fu;ksDrk dk uke izdV fd;k & 20% fu%kDrrk fu/kkZfjr dh vkSj 2000@& #i;s ekfld vkenuh fu/kkZfjr dh & vkenuh] mez ,oa fu%kDrrk dks ns[krs gq,] vihykFkhZ izfrdj ds :i esa 1]30]600@& #i;s izkIr djus dk gdnkj gS & rn~uqlkj vf/kfu.kZ; mikUrfjr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 8½
vihy vakr% Lohdkj dhA
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.2.95, appellants along with Giriraj Singh were going on scooter. Respondent No.1 while driving jeep R.J.14-C-5051 rashly and negligently hit scooter and caused injuries to appellants and Giriraj Singh. This jeep was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3.
3. Respondent No.1 and 2 did not appear before the tribunal and respondent No.3 filed reply and raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. After recording evidence, learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above against which these appeals have been filed.
4. None appeared for respondent No.1 and 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.3 and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that looking to the injuries and disability, learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding lesser amount,hence, appeals may be accepted and awarded amount may be enhanced whereas learned counsel for the respondents submitted that amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, hence, appeals may be dismissed.
6. As far appeal No.521/2000 is concerned, A.W.2 Kartar Singh has stated that at the time of accident he was doing work of loading labourer in transport company and he used to save Rs.3,500/- per month. A.W.4 Harjeet Singh who is owner of Khalsa Road Lines has stated that previously appellant Kartar Singh used to do work of loading labourer in his firm. He also stated that four labourers are required to load and un-load truck and Rs.200/- are paid per truck. He also stated that 3-4 trucks are loaded in a day. He admitted in his cross examination that appellant was working with him since 1989 but he does maintain registers regarding payment to loading labourers. Statement of Harjeet Singh cannot be believed because appellant himself has not pleaded in his petition that he was working with Khalsa Road Lines. No doubt he has stated in his statement that he was working in Khalsa Road Lines but column of employer in claim petition has been left blank. In such circumstances it cannot be believed that he was working in Khalsa Road Lines. A.W.4 Harjeet Singh stated that he does not maintain register of loading labourer and in absence of any record, it cannot be believed that appellant was working with Khalsa Road Lines. A.W.4 Harjeet Singh has stated that four labourers are required for loading or un-loading truck and Rs.200/- paid for per truck. He further stated that 3-4 trucks are loaded in a day,meaning thereby every loading labourer used to earn Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per day. It comes to Rs.4500/- - Rs.6000/- per month whereas appellant has mentioned his income to be Rs.3,000/- per month, in the petition and in the statement he stated that he used to save Rs.3500/-after excluding expenses. Looking to the work of appellant it cannot be believed that appellant used to earn Rs.3000/- per month but income of Rs.2000/- per month should be assessed.
7. A.W.2 Kartar Singh has stated that he suffered injuries and on account of accident his Right leg below knee was imputed. He has also stated that he had to remain in hospital for 15 days and his treatment continued for 2-3 months. He has exhibited X-Ray Report, Operation Note, Injuries report, disability Certificate Ex-62 and medical bills. As per injury report appellant suffered 4 injuries, out of which one was grevious and his right leg was amputed which is clear from Discharge Ticket. As per disability Certificate, 70
