Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prabhu Narain Jogi vs Bhawani Singh on 13 May, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
(1) SMT. SHANTI AND ORS. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 2004)
(2) SMT. SHANTI AND ORS. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 39/2011)
In
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 2004)
(3) CHANDA LAL. VS. BHAWANI SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2584 of 2003)
(4) CHANDA LAL VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 32/2011)
In
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2584of 2003)
(5) GHAN SHYAM VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2004)
(6) GHAN SHYAM VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 41 of 2004)
In
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2004)
(7) PHOOL CHAND VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 141 of 2004)
(8) PHOOL CHAND VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 45/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 141of 2004)
(9) PRABHU NARAYAN JOGI VS. BHAWANI SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2583 of 2003)
(10) PRABHU NARAYAN JOGI VS. BHAWANI SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 38/2011)
In
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2583 of 2003)
(11) CHIRANJI LAL VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
(12) CHIRANJI LAL VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 37/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
(13) BUDHA RAM VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2004)
(14) BUDHA RAM VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 47/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 30 of 2004)
(15) SMT. PRABHATI AND ORS. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 2004)
(16) SMT. PRABHATI AND ORS. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 44/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 2004)
(17) JAGDISH VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 2004)
(18) JAGDISH VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 46/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 2004)
(19) KAJOD AND ORS. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2004)
(20) KAJOD AND ORS. H VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 42/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 21 of 2004)
(21) MOHAN LAL VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2004)
(22) MOHAN LAL VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 40/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2004)
(23) SMT. PREM DEVI AND OTRS. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13of 2004)
(24) SMT. PREM DEVI AND ORS. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 36/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2004)
(25) KAILASH CHAND AND ANR. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2004)
(26) KAILASH CHAND ANR ANR. VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 35/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2004)
(27) ASHOPAL VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2004)
(28) ASHOPAL VS. SATYAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 43/2011)
iN
(S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2004)
Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 against the Award dated 25.9.2003 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in Claim Cases Nos. 647/94, 38/95, 10/95, 14/95, 648/94, 95/95, 255/95, 448/95, 449/95, 450/95, 494/95, 105/96, 186/95, and 187/95.
Date of Order : May 13, 2011
PRESENT
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for the claimants in Appeal No.32 of 2004, 33/2004,18/2004,141/2004,36/2004, 35/2004, 30/2004, 55/2004, 34/2004, 13/2004, and 21/2004
Mr. K.N. Tewari for the appellants in Appeal No.2584/2003, and 2583/2003,
Mr. Virendra Agarwal and Mr. Vizzi Agarwal, for the insurance company
Mr.Ram Rakh Sharma, for the cross objector Rayees, non-petitioner No.5 in all the appeals.
---
BY THE COURT :
These appeals and cross objections have been filed against the award dated 25.9.2003 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in Claim Cases Nos. 647/94, 38/95, 10/95, 14/95, 648/94, 95/95, 255/95, 448/95, 449/95, 450/95, 494/95, 105/96, 186/95, and 187/95, they are being disposed by this common judgment.
2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals and cross objections, are that on 11.8.94 at about 8.00 p.m. Jeep No. RJ 14 C 3319 and bus No. RJ 14 P 0396 collided near Dayarampura on Jaipur Agra Road, resulting in death of Moti Ram, Jagdish, Jhutha Ram, Ram Narain, Satish and serious injuries to Chiranji Lal, Ghan Shyam, Gopal, Ashopal, Mohan Lal, Budha Ram, Jagdish and Phool Chand. All these persons were traveling in Jeep. These persons were going from Jaipur towards Bassi. Respondent No.4 the driver of this jeep was driving it in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed. When this jeep reached near Sayeed Ki Puliya between Kanota and Dayarampura on Jaipur Agra Road some carts were lying on the road, hence in order to cross these carts the Jeep went on the other side and was in the process of coming to its correct side. At the same time a bus No. RJ 14 P 0396 also being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No.1 came from opposite direction i.e. from Dausa side. Because of rash and negligent driving by both the drivers these vehicles collided in the middle of the road, resulting in death and bodily injuries to many persos.
4. Only respondent No.3 the Insurance Company of the bus and the respondent No.6 the Insurance Company of the jeep contested the claim petitions and filed their respective replies to the claim petitions. Respondent No.2, the owner of the bus and the respodnent No.5 the owner of the jeep did not appear before the MACT. On the basis of the pleadings of both the sides, relevant issues were framed by the MACT. 20 witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants in all the claim petitions. They also submitted relevant documents in support of their claim petitions. One witness Alok Bhatnagar was examined by the opposite parties. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the MACT decided issue No.1 in a manner that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4 only. The respondent No.1 has not been held liable for causing this accident and that is why respondents l, 2 and 3 have not been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimants. While deciding issue No.4, the objection by the respondent No.6 with regard to validity of driving licence of respondent no.4 was rejected, but it has been held that the deceased persons and injured persons were traveling in the jeep as fare paying passengers and as there is no coverage in the policy for the fare paying passengers, hence the insurance company of the jeep i.e. respondent No.6 was also exonerated from the liability of paying compensation.
5. The claimants by filing these appeals challenged the findings on issues 1, 3, 4 and 5. Whereas the respondent No.5 by way of filing cross objections in all the appeals challenged the findings of the MACT exonerating the insurance company from the liability and ownership of the jeep in question. It was also stated in the claim petition that the insurance of the vehicle RJ 14 C 3319 was made in the name of Rahees son of Kishanpur, Plot No.10 Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi, Jaipur. It was stated that the present respondent No.5 is not the son of Kishanpur nor resident of Plot No.10 Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi, Jaipur. It was also stated in the cross objection that Shri Kishanpuri son of Shri Prahaladpuri, resident of Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi Gahtgage, Jaipur submitted supurdginama of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle on 12.1.1996 before the Judicial Magistrate Bassi and also submitted forged General Power of Attorney on respondent No.5 Stamp alleged to have been executed on 19.8.1995. This power of attorney is false and fabricated one typed on the stamp papers dated 12.1.1996. The stamp papers was purchased on 12.1.1996 and signature on the power of attorney of the respondent no.5 is also forged one which can be verified from the record as well as from the vakalatnama submitted by the respondent No.5.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants in relation to issue No.1 has argued that the accident had occurred only because of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.4 i.e. Jeep Driver. The respondent No.1 has wrongly been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation by saying that there was no negligence on his part. In fact it was a case of composite and joint negligence of both the drivers. It was proved by unrebutted evidence lead by all the claimants that the jeep was being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent no.4. When this jeep reached near Sayeed Ki Puliya between Dayarampura and Kanota some carts were lying on the road. The jeep driver in order to cross carts went on the other side and was in the process of coming to his side, at the same time a bus No. RJ 14 P 0396 also being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No.1 came from opposite direction i.e. from Dausa side and collided with the jeep in the centre of the road. It was argued that in these circumstances it was a clear case of rash and negligent driving by both the drivers because on one hand the jeep was being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver and went on the other side of the road in order to cross the carts, on the other hand there was an occasion for the bus driver, that when the jeep went on the other side, he ought to have stopped his bus in order to give the jeep the way to come on its side. Hence the last occasion to save the accident was with the bus driver.
7. In relation to issue No.4 the learned counsel has argued that the MACT has erred in deciding that the deceased persons and injured persons were fare paying passengers in the jeep and there was no coverage in the policy for these persons and accordingly the insurance company of the jeep i.e. respondent No.6 has been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation while deciding this issue the MACT relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and others. The MACT has wrongly applied the principle of this jdugment in the present case because the case of Asha Rani was relating to the liability with regard to gratuitous persons traveling in goods vehicle. In the present case the jeep was not a goods vehicle, hence principle laid down in judgment of Asha Rani's case cannot be made applicable. As per the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act at the most it can be a case of breach of policy condition even then the provisions of this section says that even a breach of policy condition does not come between the right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation from the Insurance Company because it is the statutory liability of the Insurance Company and of course in that case if the Insurance company wishes, it can recover the amount paid to the third party from the insured person i.e. the owner of the vehicle.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on Abdul Jabbar vs. Kesar and others ( 1998 (10 TAC 187 (Raj.), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satpal Singh and others ( 2000 ACJ 1) and T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others (MACD 2008 (SC) 246).
9. In relation to cross objections, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has argued that as many as 20 witnesses were examined during the course of trial on behalf of the claimants and documents were produced by the claimants but none of the documents as well as none of the witnesses deposed that the respondent No.5 cross objector was at fault in the accident. The respondent No.5 present objector sold out the vehicle to Shri Kishanpuri the Jeep No. RJ 14 C 3319 four months prior to the date of accident, as such present respondent cross objector is not responsible for the accident and at the time of accident he was no more owner of the vehicle i.e. jeep as such liability cannot be fastened on the respondent No.5 cross objector. There are so many dictum and pronouncements of this court and the Apex Court in this regard that at a time there cannot be two owners of the vehicle met with an accident. As such either Kishanpuri may be owner of the vehicle or either respondent No.5 but the MACT fastened the liability on the respondent 5 without touching this aspect as such the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law. The jeep was having the valid insurance of the relevant period w.e.f. 31.5.1994 to 30.5.1995 and insurance company was wrongly exonerated from the liability by the MACT as such the impugned award is not sustainable. The insurance of the vehicle was made in the name of Rahees son of Shri Kishanpur, Plot No. 10 Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi Jaipur. The present respondent no.5 is not the son of Shri Kishanpur nor resident of plot No.10 Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi Jaipur. This address is shown with collusion of Kishanpur and after purchasing the vehicle Shri Kishanpur made a false statement before the insurance company and vehicle was insured by making misrepresentation by Shri Kishanpuri for which he is required to be prosecuted in accordance with law and the matter is required to be remanded back by setting aside the impugned award. Shri Kishanpuri son of Shri Prahaladpuri, resident of Ladi Walon Ki Bagichin Ghatgate Jaipur submitted supurdginama of the registration certificate of the vehicle on 12.01.1996 before Judicial Magistrate Bassi and has submitted the forged general power of attorney of respondent No.5 stating to have been executed on 19.8.95. This power of attorney is false and fabricated one, typed on the stamp papers dated 12.1.1996.
10. Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, learned counsel for the cross objector respondent No.5 placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhanwar Lal and others (2003 (3) WLN 407, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi and others (2006 R.A.R. 462 (R.A.R. 462 (Raj.), New India Insurance Company vs. Darshana Devi and others (2008 R.A.R. 58 (SC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mst. Sodari Devi and others (2003 (2) WLN 467)
11.. On the contrary, Mr. Pritam Bijlani and Vizzy Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance companies state that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal.
12. The learned counsel for the insurance companies placed reliance on General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M. Laxmi and others (2009 ACJ 104).
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the award passed by the MACT in the claim petitions.
14. First I may consider the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. In Abdul Jabar vs. Kesar and others (supra) this Court the vehicle ws insured for social domestic and pleasure purposes and for the insured's own business. The policy did not cover the use for hire or reward. Merely, because rice for the owner of the vehicle was being carried in the jeep, it was held that the jeep was being used within the scope of the insurance policy.
16. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satpal Singh and others (supra) it was held that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passenger in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class.
17. In T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others (supra) related to head to head collision between a Corporation's bus and a private bus. In that case blameworthiness of the two drivers modified from 50:50 to 75:25 for the private bus driver and the Corporation bus driver.
18. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhanwar Lal and others ( supra) the vehicle was insured as private vehicle and it carried passengers for hire or reward in violation of terms of policy, not taken before Tribunal. Statement of victim passengers reveals the travel without hire or reward. This Court held that since it is not shown that passengers were traveling for hire or reward or the vehicle used was for public purpose it cannot be said that expression to any person used in section 147 does not include passengers in a private service vehicle. Insurer cannot get rid of its liability in case of accident of such vehicle.
19. In National Insurance Co. vs. Gangadevi and others (supra) the jeep was registered as a private vehicle. Insurance company not proved that vehicle was plied for hire or reward or any hire or reward was paid and also failed to prove that driver had no valid driving licence . This court held the liability of the insurance company.
20. In New India Insurance Company vs. Darshana Devi and others (supra) it was held that if the owner had contravened the conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company cannot escape its liability in regard to third party risk but would be entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of offending vehicle.
21. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mst. Sodari Devi and others (supra) a person sitting in a goods vehicle whether he is a gratuitous or a paid passenger would be covered by expression any person and termed as third party. If such person suffers any injuries insurance company would be liable to pay compenstion to him or his legal representatives.
22. In General Manger United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M. Laxmi and others (supra) it was held that death of pillion rider when the scooter hit a bullock cart because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter. The High Court relying upon circular of Tariff Advisory Committee which states that standard form for motor cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers affixed liability on the insurance company.
23. It is an admitted case that only the respondent No.3 the Insurance Company of the bus and the respondent No.6 the Insurance Company of the jeep contested the claim petitions and filed their replies to the claim petition. Respondent No.2, the owner of the bus and the respondent No.5 the owner of the jeep did not appear before the MACT. At this stage the cross objections of the respondent No.5 cannot be considered because of the fact that he has not brought to the notice of the MACT about his position that he was not the owner of the jeep. Now this ground cannot be raised before this court in the absence of any documentary proof or documents even produced at this stage. Simply stating before this court that he is not the owner of the jeep when the accident took place cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. The MACT on issues 1 and 4 gave the following findings after considering the evidence and the documents produced by the claimants and the insurance companies :
Issue No.1 :
18. ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? 1 ?????????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? 20-25-30 ???????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??, ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ???, ????? ?????.4 ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????????? ?????.82 ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?????.82 ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???????????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??, ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????????: ?? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?
Issue No.4 :
24.???????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?. ??. ???? ??????? ????? 2003 ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? 493 ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ?. ??. ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? 174 ?? 3319 ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ????
24. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT on the issues 1 and 4. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the MACT on these two issues. In the absence of any evidence or documentary proof the objections take by the respondent No.5 at this stage in the appeals filed by the claimants cannot be taken into consideration particularly when the respondent No.5 has not contested the claim petition even after service of notice. Thus the cross objections filed by the respondent No.5 in all the appeals stand rejected. The appeals filed by the claimants regarding issues 1 and 4 also stand rejected. The rulings cited above are not applicable in the facts of this case.
25. Now I may take up the appeals filed by the claimants one by one regarding issue No. 3 awarding compensation to the claimants.
SBCMA NO. 31 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.648/1994)
26. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of Satish. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing jewelery work, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
27. From the postmortem report Ex. 71 the age of Satish was shown as 18 years. The father and mother of deceased Satish were 40- 35 years of age at the time of filing of the claim petition. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/-. By applying the multiplier of 16 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,68,800/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled to any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of creamation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT on issue No.3 in the claim filed by the claimants for award of Rs. 2,83,800/- as compensation to the claimants is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimant for increase in the amount is rejected being devoid of merit.
SBCMA NO. 13 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.647/1994)
28. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of Motiram. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
29. From the postmortem report Ex. 5 the age of Motiram was shown as 25 years. The claimant Prem Devi is wife of the deceased Motiram. Whereas Kumari Kamla and Kumari Chhoti were aged 14 years and 11 years. Claimant Smt. Kishani is the mother of deceased Motiram. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/- by the MACT. By applying the multiplier of 18 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,02400/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled for any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of creamation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT in the claim petition filed by the claimants on issue No.3 for award of Rs. 3,17,400/- as compensation to the claimants is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimant for increase in the amount is also devoid of merit.
SBCMA NO. 21 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.10/1995)
30. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of Jhootharam. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
From the postmortem report Ex. 6 the age of Jhootharam was shown as 25 years. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/- per month on the basis of the evidence and documents produced by the claimants. By applying the multiplier of 17 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,85,600/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled for any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of cremation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT for award of Rs. 3,00600/- as compensation to the claimants on issue No.3 is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimants for increase in the amount is rejected being devoid of merit.
SBCMA NO. 55 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.14/1995)
31. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of Ramnarain. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
32. From the postmortem report Ex. 63 the age of Ramnarain was shown to be as 28 years. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/- per month. By applying the multiplier of 18 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs.3,02400/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled for any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of creamation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT for award of Rs. 3,17,400/- as compensation to the claimants is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimant for increase in the amount is also devoid of merit.
SBCMA NO. 34 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.38/1995)
33. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of Jagdish. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
34. From the postmortem report Ex. 7 the age of Jagdish was shown to be as 35 years. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/- per month on the basis of the documents produced by the claimants. By applying the multiplier of 17 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs.2,85,600/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled for any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of cremation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT for award of Rs. 3,006,00/- as compensation to the claimants is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimant for increase in the amount is also devoid of merit.
SBCMA NO. 141 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.105/1996)
35. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs. 60,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 10,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
36. As per Ex.76 he received four injuries. As per Ex.77 Operation Note he received fracture in jaw. As per admission card Ex. 74 and discharge ticket Ex. 75 the claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 11.8.94 till 12.9.94 and operated on 3.9.94. The claimant produced Ex. 78 to Ex. 132 medical expenses bill for Rs. 4560/-. He received 23 per cent disability on account of accident as per Ex. 133. The MACT overall looking to the injuries received by the claimant awarded Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. Since the claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 4560 and the medical expenses in curred in the operation etc. granted one time compensation in this head as Rs. 10,000/-. For loss of income during the period he remained in the hospital the MACT awarded Rs. 5,000/-. In all Rs. 75,000/- were awarded as compensation. This amount cannot be said to be excessive and the appellant is also not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 141 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.105/1996)
37. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. As per Ex.76 he received four injuries. As per Ex.77 Operation Note he received fracture in jaw. As per admission card Ex. 74 and discharge ticket Ex. 75 the claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 11.8.94 till 12.9.94 and operated on 3.9.94. The claimant produced Ex. 78 to Ex. 132 medical expenses bill for Rs. 4560/-. He received 23 per cent disability on account of accident as per Ex. 133. The MACT overall looking to the injuries received by the claimant awarded Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. Since the claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 4560 and the medical expenses in curred in the operation etc. granted one time compensation in this head as Rs. 10,000/-. For loss of income during the period he remained in the hospital the MACT awarded Rs. 5,000/-. In all Rs. 75,000/- were awarded as compensation. This amount cannot be said to be excessive and the appellant is also not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 35 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.449/1995)
38. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has merely granted Rs. 3,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
39. As per Ex.134 he received three simple injuries without any fracture. Looking to the three simple injuries received by the claimant in the accident the MACT awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation in all. The MACT reasonably awarded Rs. 3,000/- for the three simple injuries. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 36 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.448/1995)
40. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has merely granted Rs. 5,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
41. As per Ex.50 he received five simple injuries without any fracture. He remained in the Hospital for one day. Looking to the five simple injuries received by the claimant in the accident the MACT awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation in all. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 30 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.450/1995)
42. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has merely granted Rs. 3,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
43. As per Ex.52 he received three simple injuries without any fracture. Looking to the three simple injuries received by the claimant in the accident the MACT awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation in all. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 33 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.494/1995)
44. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs. 38,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 3,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 3,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
45. As per Ex.70 the claimant on account of pain in thigh advised X-ray. But X-ray report was not produced. He sustained urinary problem. The doctors gave certificate of 9 % disability on account of urinary problem. The MACT awarded Rs. 38,000/- for mental agony etc. on account of urinary problem. Rs. 3,000/- were awarded to the claimant for nutritional food etc. and Rs. 3,000/- were awarded for loss of income. In this manner the claimant was awarded in total Rs. 44,000/-. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 18 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.95/1995)
46. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs.45,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 5,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
47. As per Ex.2 the claimant received injuries in the accident. As per Ex. NA 1 X-ray report the claimant received fracture in hand. He was admitted in SMS Hospital on 11.8.94 and operated on 12.8.94 and 16./8.1994 and discharged from Hospitazl on 25.9.1994. He produced medical expenses bill Ex. 57 to 62 in the amount of Rs. 700/-. On account of the fact that he remained in the Hospital and operated twice a sum of Rs. 45,000 was awarded as compensation. Since the claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 700/- only and for nutrition food etc. and for medical expenses a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded. For loss of income a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was further awarded. In total Rs. 55,000/- was awarded to the claimant. The doctors gave certificate of 15 % disability on account of urinary problem. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 2583 OF 2003 (CLAIM CASE NO.187/1995)
48. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs. 55,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 5,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
49. As per Ex.85 the claimant received three injuries. No x-ray report was produced. Ex.88 is discharge certificate of RCC. The claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 30.8.94 till 18.10.94. None femer of the claimant was found to be fractured. He also received fracture of L-1 and L-2 Vertibra. The claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 950/-. Ex. 87 A disability certificate upto 20 %. The MACT looking to the injuries received by the claimant and disability certificae and for mental agony Rs. 50,000/- compensation was awarded. For medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. For loss of income Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. In total Rs. 65,000/- were awarded. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 32 OF 2004 (CLAIM CASE NO.255/1995)
50. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs.. 55,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 5,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
51. As per Ex.8 the claimant received nine injuries. As per Ex. 9 the claimant received three bone fractures. Ex.11 is discharge certificate. The claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 11.8.94 till 29.8.94. The claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 2990/-. Ex. 10 is disability certificate up to 18 %. The MACT looking to the injuries received by the claimant and disability certificate and for mental agony Rs. 55,000/- compensation was awarded. For medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. For loss of future income Rs. 50,000/- was awarded. In total Rs. 1,10,000/- were awarded. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
SBCMA NO. 2584 OF 2003 (CLAIM CASE NO.186/1995)
52. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The leanred counsel for the appellant has argued that the claimant was 25 years of age at the time of accident and the MACT erred in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- only to the mental agony and treatment etc. and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards future loss. The claimant suffered 75 % disability. The amount in future loss awarded is on lower side.
53. As per Ex.76 the claimant received five injuries. Three injuries were simple in nature and two were grievous. As per Ex.2 discharge certificate, the claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 30.8.94 till 19.10.1994. Further he was admitted in Neuro Surgery from 25.5.95 to 29.5.1995. The claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 1438/-. Ex. 75 is disability certificate upto 75 %. The MACT looking to the injuries received by the claimant and disability certificae and for mental agony Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation was awarded. For medical expenses and nutritional food Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. As the claimant was earning Rs. 150 per day and his income was assessed to be Rs. 2700/- per month. In this manner the claimant was allowed Rs. 1,50,000/- as loss for future income. In total Rs. 2,60,000/- were awarded. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
54. In view of the above the misc. appeals filed by the claimants for increase in the amount of compensation stand rejected and the award dated 25.9.2003 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in Claim Cases Nos. 647/94, 38/95, 10/95, 14/95, 648/94, 95/95, 255/95, 448/95, 449/95, 450/95, 494/95, 105/96, 186/95, and 187/95 stands confirmed. The cross objections filed by the non-petitioner No.5 in all the appeals stand rejected. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA )J. OPPareek/ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(O P Pareek) PS-cum JW