I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI C. ATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH

AT JAI PUR

* * *

S. B. CI VI L MI SC. APPEAL NO. 804/ 1996

( Yuvr aj Vs. Shr i Pr akash chandr a & Or s. )

* * *

Dat e of Judgment

: :

4. 01. 2008

HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE R. S. CHAUHAN

Mr . Sobhi t Ti war i f or

Mr . R. P. Ti war i f or t he appel l ant .

Mr . Mohan Choudhar y f or

Mr . G. Bar dhar f or t he r espondent

Havi ng sust ai ned a di sabi l i t y of 10. 5%,

havi ng r ecei ved a compensat i on of Rs. 29, 453/ -

al ongwi t h i nt er est at t he r at e of 12% per annum, t he

appel l ant has come bef or e t hi s cour t f or enhancement

of compensat i on.

I n a nut shel l , t he f act s of t he case ar e t hat

on 16. 04. 1992, whi l e t he appel l ant , al ongwi t h hi s t wo

f r i ends, was r i di ng on hi s mot or cycl e, bear i ng

r egi st r at i on No. RPS- 140, when t hey wer e cr ossi ng t he

Bhabha Mar g, near Mot i Dungar i at Jai pur , a Mar ut i

car , bear i ng r egi st r at i on No. RNX 9109 came f r om Bhabha

Mar g and t ur ned on t he mai n r oad. Accor di ng t o t he

appel l ant , t he car was bei ng dr i ven i n r ash and

negl i gent manner . Consequent l y, i t hi t t he mot or cycl e.

Resul t ant l y, t he appel l ant suf f er ed f r act ur e of hi s

r i ght f oot as wel l as cer t ai n i nj ur i es on t he el bow

and on t he r i ght t hi gh. Al ongwi t h ot her i nj ur ed

per sons, t he appel l ant f i l ed hi s cl ai m pet i t i on.

Si nce, t hr ee di f f er ent cl ai m pet i t i ons wer e f i l ed,

t hey wer e cl ubbed t oget her and by a common awar d dat ed

22. 06. 1996, al l t hese pet i t i ons wer e deci ded by t he

l ear ned Mot or Acci dent Cl ai ms Tr i bunal , Jai pur Ci t y,

Jai pur ( f or shor t , ' t he l ear ned Tr i bunal ' ) . I n or der

t o suppor t hi s case, t he appel l ant had exami ned f i ve

wi t nesses and t he I nsur ance Company had exami ned t wo

wi t nesses. Bot h t he si des had submi t t ed a l ar ge number

of document s. Af t er goi ng t hr ough t he or al and

document ar y evi dence, t he l ear ned Tr i bunal concl uded

t hat t he appel l ant had cont r i but ed 25% t o t he

acci dent . Ther ef or e, whi l e gr ant i ng t he compensat i on

amount i ng t o Rs. 39, 270/ - , i t deduct ed 25% t her eof and

di r ect ed t he compensat i on of Rs. 29, 453/ - t o be pai d t o

t he appel l ant al ongwi t h i nt er est at t he r at e of 12%

per annum. Si nce, t he appel l ant i s aggr i eved by t he

meagr e amount of compensat i on, he has f i l ed t hi s

appeal bef or e t hi s Cour t .

Mr . Sobhi t Ti war i , l ear ned counsel f or t he

appel l ant has vehement l y r ai sed t hr ee cont ent i ons

bef or e t hi s Cour t : f i r st l y, t her e i s no evi dence t o

show t hat t he appel l ant had cont r i but ed 25% t o t he

occur r ence of t he acci dent . Accor di ng t o hi m, t he

appel l ant was dr i vi ng hi s mot ocycl e on t he cor r ect

si de of t he r oad. I n f act , accor di ng t o t he evi dence,

t he acci dent had occur r ed mer el y because t he Mar ut i

car had not t aken a l ong t ur n, but had t aken a shor t

t ur n on t he mai n r oad. Ther ef or e, t he l ear ned Tr i bunal

has i ncor r ect l y concl uded t hat t he appel l ant had

cont r i but ed t o t he occur r ence of t he acci dent .

Secondl y, even i f t hr ee per sons wer e r i di ng on t he

mot or cycl e, no pr esumpt i on can be dr awn t hat t hey had

cont r i but ed t o t he acci dent . Thi r dl y, t he compensat i on

of Rs. 29, 453/ - i s not “ j ust and r easonabl e” f or t he

di sabi l i t y suf f er ed by t he appel l ant .

On t he ot her hand, Mr . Mohand Choudhar y,

l ear ned counsel f or t he r espondent has suppor t ed t he

i mpugned awar d.

We have hear d t he l ear ned counsel s f or