Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 3513
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
ROOPA RAM – Appellant
Versus
JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS. – Respondent
CMA / 1834 / 2013
Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, Mr. TRS Sodha
The court emphasized the necessity of considering valid medical evidence for permanent disability in compensation claims, leading to an enhanced award.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Claim for compensation - The claimant challenged the award of Rs.12,911/- with 6% interest, arguing for a higher amount due to permanent disability. The Tribunal initially ignored the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. The court found the certificate valid and modified the compensation to Rs.1,43,311/- with interest. (Paras 1, 10, 11)
(B) Disability Assessment - The court emphasized the importance of considering the permanent disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, which was based on comprehensive medical evaluations. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was involved in an accident on 30.08.2010, sustaining serious injuries and permanent disability. He initially claimed Rs.6,65,000/- but was awarded Rs.12,911/- by the Tribunal. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in not considering the permanent disability certificate, leading to an enhancement of the compensation amount. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the disability certificate and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. (Paras 5, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the permanent disability certificate should be considered, as it was issued based on thorough medical evaluation, thus justifying an increase in compensation. (Paras 8, 10)
Result: The appeal is partly allowed, and the compensation is modified to Rs.1,43,311/- with interest.
Order
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the validity of judgment/award dated 02.07.2013 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Abu Road, Sirohi, in MAC Case No.181/2010 whereby claim petition of the claimant was allowed and was awarded an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.12,911/- in total with the interest @ 6% p.a.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.08.2010, appellant Rooparam was traveling in his camel cart with Somaram, heading from the Abu Road RICCO area to their village Maval.
3. At around 5:30 PM, as the camel cart reached near Amarnath Hotel on National Highway No. 14, Respondent No. 1, driving his trailer (No. RJ 14-GC-4347) at high speed and negligently, hit the rear right side of the camel cart. Due to the impact, appellant was thrown off the cart.
4. A case (No. 215/2010) was registered at Police Station Abu Road Sadar, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Respondent No. 1 under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It was averred in the claim petition that appellant was 34 years old at the time of the accident and earned Rs. 6,000/- per month from his work with the camel cart. In the accident, he sustained a fracture at the back left side of his head, causing a 5- 6 cm wound, serious and minor injuries near his right knee, internal injuries to his chest and back, and other minor injuries. These injuries also led to permanent disability. His initial treatment was done at the Government Hospital in Abu Road, and later at the Trauma Center in Talhati, where he was admitted until 04.09.2010.
6. Additionally, his camel cart was damaged in the accident. The claim petition was filed within the jurisdiction of this tribunal, and appellant prayed for compensation of Rs. 6,65,000/- jointly and severally from the respondents, along with 18% interest per annum from the date of the accident.
7. Upon issuing notices, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear, nor did anyone appear on their behalf to represent them in the claim petition. Respondent No. 3, the insurance company while denying most of the allegations due to lack of knowledge or claiming them to be incorrect. However, the insurance company admitted that the vehicle (No. RJ 14-GC-4347) was insured with them in the name of Respondent No. 2 from 05.10.2009 to 04.10.2010. The company argued that the appellant had exaggerated the claims to inflate the compensation amounts and were not entitled to such compensation. In its specific objections, it is stated that at the time of the accident, Respondent No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving license, and the vehicle was being operated without a valid and effective permit and fitness certificate, thus violating the terms of the insurance policy.
8. Additionally, it was claimed that the accident was not caused by the negligence of the driver of the trailer and that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was alleged that the appellant, in collusion with the police and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, had falsely implicated the vehicle in the accident. It was further argued that the insurance company’s liability was limited based on contributory negligence. Ultimately, the insurance company prayed for dismissal of the petitions against them, along with costs.
9. Thereafter, as per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed five issues. Thereafter, claimant in support of his claim petition, examined himself as witness and exhibited several documents to prove his case whereas no witness(es) or any document(s) was examined or led in defence.
4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the claimants and vide judgment/award dated 02.07.2013 awarded quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs.12,911/- with the interest @6% p.a. and being dissatisfied of the award, the claimants have preferred the claim petition.
5. Learned counsel fo
