Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganesh vs Smt. Sunita & Anr on 5 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 892 / 2014
Ganesh S/o Rangji Damor Aadivasi, R/o Bassi Makwana, Post
Limthan, District Banswara (Owner)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Sunita W/o Bhagwatilal Kalal, by caste Kalal, R/o Choti
Sarwan, Tehsil & District Banswara (Claimant)
2. Govind S/o Rakamlal, by caste Katara, R/o Fafar, Police
Station Danpur, Tehsil & District Banswara (Driver)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : None present
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order 05/05/2017 Today the matter is listed in the category "for dictation of order". No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Hence the appeal is being decided in his absence.
The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-owner against the judgment and award dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 94/2010, whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.1,73,187/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1 to be paid by the appellant-owner jointly and severally.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 21.12.2008 at about 7AM, when the claimant/respondent No.1 was cleaning outside her house, at that time Jeep No. RJ03-TA-0064 being driven by the respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner while hitting her (2 of 3) [CMA-892/2014] collided with one electric pole. Due to the said accident, the said electric pole fall down on the claimant, consequent to which she sustained certain grievous and simple injuries. At the time of accident, the claimant was pregnant and due to the said accident, she lost her unborn child in her womb.
The appellant-owner filed reply to the claim petition denying all the averments made therein and prayed for dismissal of the claim. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues including the issue of relief. In support of her case, the claimant examined herself as AW-1 and Dr. SK Bhatnagar as AW-2 and got exhibited 40 documents. No evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant/owner.
The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, vide its judgment and award dated 25.02.2014 awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs.1,73,187/- in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1 to be paid by the appellant/owner jointly and severally. Hence, this misc. appeal on behalf of the appellant/Owner.
I have perused the appeal as also the impugned judgment/award of the Tribunal and material available on record.
The claimant Smt. Sunita (AW-1) deposed before the learned Tribunal that in the accident, she sustained several grievous and simple injuries. At the time of accident, she was pregnant and due to the said accident, her unborn child died in her womb. The learned Tribunal held that the evidence of AW-1 clearly shows that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the said accident the claimant (3 of 3) [CMA-892/2014] sustained several grievous and simple injuries. Further at the time of accident the claimant was pregnant and she lost her unborn child in the accident. In rebuttal, neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant to controvert the fact that the accident was occurred due to the negligent of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Further AW-2 Dr. SK Bhatnagar in his evidence deposed that the claimant was pregnant for seven months and unborn child died in the womb due to injury sustained in the accident. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstance of the case awarded a compensation Rs.1,73,187/- in all, to the claimant/respondent No.1 to be paid by the non-claimants jointly and severally.
Looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the fact that in the accident, the claimant lost her unborn child of seven months, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. The learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant- owner liable jointly and severally. The learned Tribunal has passed a just and reasonable award, which requires no interference. The appeal filed by the appellant-owner is devoid of any merit.
It is hereby dismissed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) J.
ms/-106