Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rsrtc & Anr vs Narayanlal & Anr on 8 August, 2016
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:JUDGMENT:
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1433/2016
R.S.R.T.C. & Anr.
vs.
Narayan Lal & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08/08/2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. L.K.Purohit,for the appellants.
BY THE COURT:
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant-Corporation aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 15/3/2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura District Bhilwara, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,33,679/- as compensation to the injured claimant-respondent No.1.
The application for compensation was filed by respondent no.1 inter alia with the averments that on 25/3/2011 he was travelling on a Motor Cycle along with one Tejmal when at about 7-7.30 pm on Shahpura-Bijaynagar Road the Bus driven by respondent no.2 and owned by the appellant-Corporation, which was being driven rashly and negligently, struck the Motor Cycle resulting in grievous injuries to the respondent no.1 and his co- passenger Tejmal. It was claimed that the claimant was aged about 26 years and was working as driver with Brij Mohan Kumawat and was engaged in agricultural operations and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Compensation amounting to 2/5 Rs.63,11,000/- was claimed.
A response was filed by the appellants inter alia with the averments that both the claimant as well as Tejmal were drunk and they collided with the stationery bus for which the claimant, who was driving the Motor Cycle, himself was liable, the claimant was not having a valid driving licence and, therefore, the Corporation was not liable for making payment of any compensation. Further, the averments made regarding compensation were also denied.
The Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of claimants, four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the appellant, three witnesses were examined. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Bus, while computing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there were fractures from cheek to head, which was operated & 12 plates were fixed and there was fracture in jaw also. The claimant lost sight of his right eye and produced disability certificate indicating 100% disability, Dr.Anees Ahmed (A.W.4) was examined in this regard. It was found that hearing power from the right ear also was lost and, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant became 100% disabled. The income of the injured was taken at Rs.3000/- per month, based on the fact that his age was 26 years multiplier of 17 was applied for loss of income and a sum of Rs.6,12,000/- was awarded, for mental agony Rs.50,000/- was awarded and for hospitalization etc. a sum of Rs.24,500/- was awarded, based on the bills Ex.108 to 301, medical 3/5 expenses to the tune of Rs.4,42,179/- were awarded along with conveyance expenses at Rs.5000/-. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.11,33,679/- was awarded to the claimant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Corporation; at worst, present is a case of contributory negligence, inasmuch as it was proved on record that the injured was drunk and, therefore, the appellant Corporation could not have been held solely liable for the accident.
Further submissions were made that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding huge compensation to the claimant as the disability was not proved and, therefore, the judgment & award impugned deserves to be set aside.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
The Tribunal while considering the issue of negligence came to the conclusion from the material produced before it that though Tejmal, the pillion rider, was drunk, there was no evidence available on record indicating that the injured claimant, who was driving the Motor Cycle was also drunk. The submission of counsel for the appellant that so far as Tejmal is concerned, the medical report Ex.405 clearly indicated that he was drunk and, therefore, the presumption arise that the injured claimant was also drunk has no substance inasmuch as simultaneously along with Tejmal, the claimant was also medically examined 4/5 and his medical report (Ex.5) was produced, which does not indicate that the claimant was drunk/he had consumed liquor and, therefore, merely because in the report of pillion rider it was indicated that he consumed liquor, ipso facto it cannot be presumed that the driver-claimant was also drunk.
From the site map, it is apparent that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of appellant Corporation. So far as the submission regarding contributory negligence is concerned, there is no material available on record for indicating any contributory negligence on the part of claimant and, therefore, the said submission also does not have any substance.
Coming to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a perusal of the finding recorded by the Tribunal indicates that out of the total sum of Rs.11,33,679/-, a sum of Rs.4,42,179/- pertains to the medical bills and, therefore, challenge to the amount awarded by the Tribunal based on the medical bills cannot be sustained.
So far as the disablement of the claimant is concerned, the very fact that the claimant was working as driver and has lost his hearing capacity from one ear and also lost sight in one of his eyes, besides multiple fractures in skull as well jaw, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the disability of the injured was 100%.
So far as the compensation awarded towards loss of income to the tune of Rs.6,12,000/- is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.3000/- per month only, looking to the fact that the claimant had a driving licence 5/5 for driving the vehicle and he claimed to be working as a driver, the amount of Rs.3000/- as monthly income cannot be said to be excessive. In view thereof, the amount of compensation towards loss of income also does not call for any interference.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
item no. 40 baweja/-