Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R.S.R.T.C. vs Kumari Santosh And Anr. on 3 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)WLN644
Author: N.P. Gupta
Bench: N.P. Gupta
JUDGMENT N.P. Gupta, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Corporation, against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali, dated 15.7.1999, decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs. 1,73,600/-, and directing this amount, to carry interest @ 6% per annum, from 6.10.1997 till realisation. The claimant has filed a cross-objection, seeking enhancement of the award.
2. The facts of the case are that on 26.5.1997, the claimant along with her other family members was going from Falna to Ranakpur, in a car No. RSJ-7935, when they proceeded about four kilometers ahead of Bali, before village Kotbalian, the Corporation's bus No. RJ 14-P-2231 came from the opposite direction, being driven negligently, banged against the car, as a result of which, right hand of the claimant was severely injured, rather the hand was separated from near elbow. With these allegations of facts, it was claimed, that the claimant belongs to ordinary family, who earn their livelihood by running Tiffin service, wherein the claimant was also actively assisting, and was also undertaking tuitions of infants, and thus, she was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. Claiming the amount for loss of income, medical expenditure, and under various other heads, a total amount of Rs. 11,44,998/- was claimed.
3. The defendants contested the claim, inter-alia on the ground, that it was the driver of the car, who was driving it negligently, and dashed against the bus, it was also contended that, it was the victim, who was hanging her hand outside the car, and therefore, she received injuries, and therefore, she is guilty of contributory negligence, as well. The quantum of compensation was also contested.
4. The learned Trial Court framed 5 issues, decided issues No. 1 and 4, relating to negligence/contributory negligence, against the appellant, while issue No. 3 was also decided against the appellant, which related to the question about the owner and insurer of the car, being necessary party. Then while deciding issue No. 2, relating to quantum of compensation, learned trial Court held the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 25,000/- for medical expenditure, Rs. 10,000/- for travelling, and expenditure, incurred while she was in hospital, then Rs. 3600/- has been awarded for the expenditure, incurred in keeping attendant for a period of three months. Then, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been assessed for permanent disablement found by the learned Trial Court to be 60%. Then, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- has been assessed as compensation for mental pain and agony. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 1,73,600/- has been assessed and awarded.
5. The learned counsel for both the parties have assailed the finding of the learned Trial Court only on issue No. 2 inasmuch as, the appellant contended that the amount awarded is excessive, while the claimant contended that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. From the material available on record, it is established that in the accident, the right hand of the claimant was severed from the body. The accident relates to 26.5.1998, and the claimant has produced various bills, about purchase of Medicines, expenses incurred in lodging boarding, and travelling, in connection with the accident. Looking to the amounts, mentioned in the bills, and the receipts of the various hospitals, in my view, the amount awarded, being Rs. 25,000/-, and Rs. 10,000/- is appropriately just, likewise, I also do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the amount of Rs. 3600/-, awarded for the expenditure, incurred in keeping an attendant.
8. Then, so far as the further amount awarded, being Rs. 1,10,000/- under two different heads, like permanent disablement, and mental pain and agony is concerned, it is significant to note, that the learned Tribunal, in para 17 has taken notice of the fact that the victim is a young girl of 18 years and loss of right hand of such a female is a vital loss, impairing her day to day functioning, even undertaking care of her day to day bodily needs, that she belonging to Jain Community, she will face lot of difficulties in getting married, rather the chances of her marriage have become very bleak, and even if somebody gets ready yet looking to the social circumstances, substantial amount is likely to be required. But then, while making assessment of the compensation in para 20 and 21, learned Tribunal has completely lost sight of all the aforesaid considerations, and they have remained in the realm of rendering lip service only, and have not been manifested in terms of cash compensation.
9. Considering these circumstances, I am inclined to award a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant, collectively under the head of permanent disablement, loss of future income, and mental pain and agony, etc.
10. Thus, the amount, assessed by the learned Tribunal, is increased from Rs. 1,73,600/- to Rs. 2,63,600/-.
11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum only, which is required to be increased at least to 12%, if not 18% per annum. This has been opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, in my view, the amount awarded should carry interest @ 9% per annum from 6.10.1997 till payment.
12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant fails, while the cross-objections, filed by the respondent, partly succeed, and the impugned award is modified, in the manner, that the compensation awarded is enhanced from Rs. 1,73,600/- to Rs. 2,63,600/-, and this amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 6.10.1997 till realisation. The parties shall bear their own costs.