Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Basanti Devi vs Dhanna Ram & Ors on 17 August, 2012
(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1656 of 2005
Smt. Sugni Devi vs. Dhanna Ram and ors.
(2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1635 of 2005
Kumri Sunita vs. Dhanna Ram and ors.
(3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1645 of 2005
Smt. Lata vs. Dhanna Ram and ors.
(4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1646 of 2005
Deepak Kumar vs. Dhanna Ram and ors.
(5) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1676 of 2005
Smt. Sampati Devi vs. Dhanna Ram and ors.
(6) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 351 of 2011
Smt. Basanti Devi vs. Dhanna Ram and ors.
---
17.8.2012 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA REPORTABLE Mr.Anshul Sharma for Mr.L.P.Singhal for the appellants Mr.Virendra Agarwal ( in appeal No.1656/2005, 1635/2005, 1645/2005, 1646/2005, 1676/2005 and Mr. P.S. Arya (in appal No. 1645/2005) for Oriental Insurance Company Mr. J.K.Singhi,(appeal No. 1645/2005) Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma,(appeal No. 1646/2005), Mr.N.L. Verma (in appealNo. 1676/2005)and Mr. Dinesh Kala (in appeal No.1635/2005) for the National Insurance Company Mr. J.P. Gupta for the respondent No.4 owner of the bus RJ 01 P 0659 (appeal No.1645/2005)
---
The above mentioned six appeals have been filed by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the common award dated 16.3.2005 of the Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Beawar and Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Beawar Distt. Ajmer ( in short MACT) in Claim Cases No.85/2004( old No. 140/97), 106/2004 (old No. 127/97), 104/2004 (old No. 82/97), 98/2004 (old No. 73/97), 1/2005 (old No. 70/97), and 94/2004 (old No.52/97) awarding Rs.1,000/- to the claimant Basanti ( appeal No. 351/2011), Rs. 35,000/- to the claimant Sampati (appeal No. 1676/05), Rs. 15,200 to the claimant Deepak Kumar ( appeal No. 1646/2005), Rs. 17,000 to the claimant Smt. Lata ( appeal No. 1645/2005), Rs. 17,000 to the claimant Kumari Sunita (appeal No. 1635/2005), Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant Sugni Devi (appeal No. 1656/2005) for enhancing the compensation awarded by the MACT. Since all six appeals arise from a common award, it will be proper for this Court to decide the appeals by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petitions before the MACT for the loss suffered by them due to the injuries sustained in the accident which allegedly took place on 2.9.96 between the bus No. RJ 19 P 1767 which was going to Jodhpur and Bus No. RJ 01 P 0659 which was going to Ramdevra. As a result of the accident the claimants sustained various injuries on the various parts of the bodies. The said accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both the buses. At the time of the accident the respondents 1, 2, and 3 were the driver, owner and insurer of the bus No. RJP 19 P- 1767 and the respondent No.4 and 5 were owner and insurer of another bus. FIR to the incident was lodged at Police Station Pokran bearing FIR No. 149/1996 in which after investigation the investigating agency filed the charge sheet against the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A IPC and 2/181 and 134/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the driver of the bus No. RJ 01 P 0659 namely Habib Mohd. died. Notice of the claim petitions were issued to the respondents and respondents l and 2 remained exparty hence the order to proceed exparty was passed against them and the respondent No.3 filed written statement to the claim petitions and denied the averments made by the claimants. The respondent No.4 did not care to file written statement and the respondent No.5 filed written statement to the claim petition and denied the averments made by the claimants. On the basis of the pleadings the MACT framed as many as 6 issues and recorded the evidence adduced by the parties. Various oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced by the parteis. After hearing the counsel for the parties the MACT was pleased to decide the claim petitions vide its common award dated 16.3.3005. The claimants were awarded compensation as mentioned above. For enhancement of compensation they have preferred the above appeals.
3. It may be mentioned that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble R.S. Chauhan J.) in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1642 of2005 decided on 28.3.2006 and S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1638/2005 decided on 7.3.2006 rejected the appeals against the common award dated 16.3.2005 passed by the MACT Beawar filed by Meghraj (Claim Case No.101/2004) and Bajja Ram (Claim Case No. 93/2004), and refused to enhance the claim amount.
4. In appeal No.1644 of 2005 against the common award dated 16.3.2005 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court ( Hon'ble R.C. Gandhi J.) rejected the appeal by the order dated 8.3.2007in claim case No. 100/2004 filed by Smt. Leelawati and refused to enhance the claim amount.
5. In appeal No.1723 of 2005 against the common award dated 16.3.2005 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court ( Hon'ble P.S.Asopa J.) rejected the appeal by the order dated 16.10.2006in claim case No. 5/2005 filed by Nootan and refused to enhance the claim amount.
6. In appeal No.4785 of 2008 against the common award dated 16.3.2005 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court ( Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Jain J.) rejected the appeal by the order dated 1.12.2008 in claim case No. 87/2004 filed by Ramesh Chand, it was held as under :
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant sustained three injuries as per his injury report Ex.-435. One injury was simple in nature and two injuries were referred for X-ray and as per X-ray report Ex.-436, the fracture was found. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/- for one simple injury and Rs. 15,000/- for fracture sustained by him. The appellant remained admitted for five days and at the rate of Rs. 400/- per day, awarded Rs. 2,000/- for nutritious food, attendant and transportation charges. As per medical bills, Ex.-429 to 504, further awarded Rs. 5500/-. The appellant sustained 6.2% permanent disability. The appellant was in service in post office, therefore, due to his permanent disability, he did not suffer any loss of income as his pay has not been reduced by this permanent disability and he is getting the same pay and other benefits, however, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded for this permanent disability by the Tribunal. Rs. 5,000/- has further been awarded for physical pain, nutritious food etc. and Rs. 10,000/- for injuries and treatment, thus, awarded total amount of Rs.53,500/- with interest. So far as shortening of leg by one inch of the appellant is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any documentary evidence in his favour to show this fact and his argument is not based on any evidence on record. Apart-from above, looking to the nature of injuries and percentage of permanent disability i.e. 6.2%, I find that the total amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to be inadequate and in my view the same appears to be just, fair and reasonable. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Versus Mahadeva Shetty and Another {(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 197} has observed that every method or mode adopted for assessing the compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Para 15 of the judgment is as under:
It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be 'just'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and nonarbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.
6. Looking to the number and nature of injuries, I find that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for by this Court.
7. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
7. Since the above six appeals have been filed for enhancement of the compensation, it is appropriate to take up appeals one by one.
MISC. APPEAL NO. 1656 OF 2005 :
8. The claimant Sugani filed the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by her including grievous fracture of the bone of thigh for which she had to remain admitted in Hospital for many days and had to incur a huge amount on the treatment. The claimant filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to her. She was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 25,000/-. She received fracture on her leg. She remained admitted in Hospital for one month. She produced documents Ex. P.282 to 298 medical expenses bills and Ex. 299 to Ex. 301 X-ray plat. The injury report was not exhibited in her statement. She has filed the injury report with the claim petition, which shows that she received one injury and she was also advised for X-ray. For the fracture she was awarded Rs. 10,000/-. She produced medical expenses bill Ex. P 282 to 298 of Rs. 2200/-. She remained in Hospital for which Rs. 1200/- were awarded. She continuously taken treatment from the Hospital for a long period. For that purpose she awarded Rs. 7600/-. Two months income in the amount of Rs. 4,000/- was also awarded. In all Rs. 25000/- was awarded to her. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality so as to award further compensation to the appellant. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and I am in agreement with the findings. The MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 25,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no further scope to award any further amount to her.
MISC. APPEAL NO. 1635 OF 2005 :
9. The claimant Sunita filed the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by her including grievous fracture of the Tibia and Fibula bones for which she had to remain admitted in Hospital for many days and had to incur a huge amount on the treatment. The claimant filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to her. She was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 17,000/-. She received fracture on her leg. She remained admitted in Hospital for one month. She produced documents Ex. 270 injury report and Ex. 271 X-ray plat. The injury report and xray report exhibited in her statement. She received one injury and she was also advised for X-ray. For the fracture she was awarded Rs. 10,000/-. She has not produced medical expenses bill but for the fracture she must have incurred some money and hence the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. For the mental agony she was awarded further Rs. 3,000/- and for loss of income she was awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In all the claimant was awarded Rs. 17,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality so as to award further compensation to the appellant. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and I am in agreement with the findings. The MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 17,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no further scope to award any further amount to her.
MISC. APPEAL NO. 1645 OF 2005 :
10. The claimant Smt. Lata filed the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by her including grievous fracture in her hand for which she had to remain admitted in Hospital for many days and had to incur a huge amount on the treatment. The claimant filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to her. She was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 17,000/-. She remained admitted in Hospital. She produced documents Ex. 133 injury report and Ex. 134 X-ray plat. The injury report and xray report exhibited in her statement. She received two injuries and she was also advised for X-ray. For the fracture she was awarded Rs. 5,000/- and for simple injury she was awarded Rs. 1,000/-. She remained in Hospital for six days and for that Rs. 1800/- was awarded to her. She has not produced medical expenses bill but for the fracture she must have incurred some money and hence the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. For the mental agony she was awarded further Rs. 5,000/- and for loss of income she was awarded Rs. 2200/-. In all the claimant was awarded Rs. 17,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality so as to award further compensation to the appellant. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and I am in agreement with the findings. The MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 17,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no further scope to award any further amount to her.
MISC. APPEAL NO. 1646 OF 2005 :
11. The claimant Deepak Kumar filed the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by him including grievous fracture in his leg for which he had to remain admitted in Hospital for many days and had to incur a huge amount on the treatment. The claimant filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him. He was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 15,200/-. He received fracture on her leg. He remained admitted in Hospital. He produced documents Ex. 146 injury report and Ex. 147 X-ray plat. The injury report and xray report exhibited in his statement. He received one injury and he was also advised for X-ray. For the fracture he was awarded Rs. 5,000/-. He remained in Hospital for four days and for that Rs. 1200/- were awarded to him. He has not produced medical expenses bill but for the fracture he must have incurred some money and hence the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. For the mental agony he was awarded further Rs. 5,000/- and for loss of income he was awarded Rs. 2000/-. In all the claimant was awarded Rs. 15,200/-. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality so as to award further compensation to the appellant. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and I am in agreement with the findings. The MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 15,200/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no further scope to award any further amount to him.
MISC. APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2005 :
12. The claimant Smt. Sampati Devi filed the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by her including grievous fracture of lower third shaft of knee due to which she had become permanent disabled and for which she had to remain admitted in Hospital for many days and had to incur a huge amount on the treatment. The claimant filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to her. She was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Her knee completely destroyed. She remained admitted in Hospital. She produced documents Ex. 1 injury report and Ex. 2 X-ray plat and medical expenses bill Ex. 3 to 111 and 114 to 124 which have been exhibited and proved in her statement. She also produced Ex. 112 discharge certificate of Jodhpur Hospital and Ex. 113 discharge certificate of Ajmer Hospital. She was operated twice. The injury report and xray report exhibited in her statement. She received one injury and she was also advised for X-ray. For the fracture she was awarded Rs. 5,000/-. For the medical expenses bill Ex.3 to 111 she was allowed compensation in the amount of Rs. 21500/-. She remained Hospitalised for three days for which she was allowed compensation in the amount of Rs. 9,000/-. For producing disablement certificate she was allowed Rs. 15000/- and for the purpose of loss of income she was allowed Rs. 4500/-. For the mental agony she was awarded further Rs. 5,000/- . In all the claimant was awarded Rs. 60,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality so as to award further compensation to the appellant. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and I am in agreement with the findings. The MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 60,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no further scope to award any further amount to her.
MISC. APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2011 :
13. The claimant Smt. Basanti Devi filed the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by her and she had to remain admitted in Hospital for many days and had to incur a huge amount on the treatment. The claimant filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to her. She was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,000/-. She received injuries on nose and chest. She stated in her statement as her husband was admitted in Hospial she could remain admitted and incurred more than Rs. 10 to 12 thousand in her treatement. She produced discharge certificate Ex. 421 showing that she was admitted in Hospital from 16.9.99 to 18.9.1999 but the accident is of the year 1996. The MACT in these circumstances refused to award any compensation to her. She produced medical expenses bill Ex. 425 to 428 total of which is Rs. 68 only and in these circumstances the MACT awarded in lump sum Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to her. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality so as to award further compensation to the appellant. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and I am in agreement with the findings. The MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 1,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no further scope to award any further amount to her.
14. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants, both are dismissed.
(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