Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Shakuntala vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 8 January, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1806/2001 (Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar and Anr.) DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 8th JANAURY, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Ilesh Jindal, for the appellant. Mr. Tripurari Sharma for the respondents. BY THE COURT:
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 26th July, 2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Behror, District Alwar whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @ 9% payable from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realisation in favour of the appellant-injured. Dissatisfied with this amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the same.
2. Background facts, in a nut shell, are thus:
That on 28th March, 1999 at about 12.00 in day hours, the appellant was coming back from her field. She was carrying a load of gram-crop with her. No sooner did she reach at bus stand of village Goonti and endeavoured to cross the road, the respondent Ashok Kumar who happened to be the owner of the vehicle also, drove the bus No.RJ-02P-1100 negligently at a fast speed and suddenly caused accident, as a result whereof the appellant sustained in all 10 injuries on her person. There being no proper medical facility at Behror, she was immediately taken to Jaipur for treatment. She is said to have remained admitted in Hospital for a long time and incurred huge expenses on medical treatment.
3. The appellant-injured filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal having recorded the statements of the witnesses and heard the parties, rendered an award of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. The appellant did not find this amount of compensation to be apt and reasonable, hence, this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award dated 26th July, 2001.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the appellant-injured sustained in all 10 injuries on her person. She sustained grievous injuries on nasal bone as also on radius and ulna. She was only 36 years of age at the time of the accident and suffered 46.40 per cent permanent partial disability. She incurred huge expenses on medical treatment and suffered agony and trauma for a considerable long time. Despite it, the learned Tribunal awarded a very paltry amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, needs to be reasonably enhanced.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Co. has defended the impugned award and called the same to be just and proper. He further contended that the injuries sustained by the appellant are simple in nature and two injuries, which have been found to be grievous, are not on the vital part of the body. Albeit, their nature is grievous in terms of medical jurisprudence, but otherwise they are ordinary. The learned Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter and decreed an appropriate amount of compensation in favour of the appellant which needs no interference.
7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the appellant was 36-38 years of age at the time of accident. She is found to have sustained fracture on nasal bone as also on radius and ulna, which is proved from X-ray report Ex.5. As per the injury report Ex.6, the appellant is found to have sustained ten injuries in all on her person. Certificate Ex.12 suggests that she suffered 46.40% permanent partial disability. The appellant stated before the Tribunal on oath that on account of the injuries sustained during accident, she was not able to discharge her routine work properly as she underwent medical treatment for a considerable long time. She incurred huge expenses and suffered physical pain and trauma. The Tribunal while considering all these aspects and relying the documents on record found the appellant 38 years of age and determined Rs.1800/- per month to be her income. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards physical pain and trauma; Rs.10,000/- towards medical treatment and Rs.50,000/- towards her loss of income owing to permanent partial disability.
8. Clause 5 of Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pertains to disability in non-fatal accidents and envisages that in case of permanent partial disability, the amount of compensation shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation as specified in the case of permanent partial total disablement.
9. The learned Tribunal assessed Rs.1800/- to be the monthly income of the appellant-injured on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at that point of time. But if we look at the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan in this regard, it is found that the minimum wages as on 28th March, 1999 was 44 rupees per day. If we take Rs.1320/- to be the monthly income of the appellant and consider the age and permanent partial disability, the amount of compensation towards loss of income after applying the multiplier as suggested in the second schedule may be determined thus:
44X30X12X16X46.40/100= Rs.1,17,596/-
The appellant is said to have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.five to six lacs on her treatment, but she is not found to have filed any medical bill or voucher to prove the same. Similarly, she is said to have hired one employee on the payment of Rs.3,000/- per month to look after her animals, but no evidence has been adduced in this regard. The evidence with regard to the monthly income and expenses incurred on medical treatment are omnibus and vague. She has not filed any evidence to substantiate her pleadings. Hence, keeping in view, the number of injuries as recorded in X-ray report Ex.5 and injury report Ex.6, the appellant is held entitled to get Rs.8,000/- for eight simple injuries and Rs.10,000/- for two grievous injuries. Though, she has not produced any medical bill but undeniably and undisputably, it can be presumed that she must have incurred expenses on her medical treatment. She must have also purchased medicines, visited Doctors many times and gone to Jaipur, hence, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.10,000/- towards medical treatment of the injuries. Apart this, she deserves to be awarded Rs.15,000/- for physical pain and trauma. Thus, the appellant is held entitled to claim total amount of Rs.1,60,596/- as compensation.
10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part and the amount of compensation under the award is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,60,596/-. The appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition, till the same is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified as indicated hereinabove.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
Pcg
5
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1806/2001
(Smt. Shakuntla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar and Anr.)
DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 8th JANAURY, 2010
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI
Mr. Ilesh Jindal, for the appellant.
Mr. Tripurari Sharma for the respondents.
***
Judgment pronounced in open court today.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part and the amount of compensation under the award is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,60,596/-. The appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition, till the same is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award stands modified as indicated hereinabove.
There shall be no order as to costs.(See separate judgment).
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
Pcg