Smt.Sushila vs Narayan Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6194 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 397/2003

Smt. Sushila W/o Dinesh Kumar Jain, aged 24 years, R/o Molela, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.

----Appellant Versus

1. Narayan Singh S/o Unkar Singh Rajpoot (Rathore), R/o Bhatwana P.S. Mangrol, District Bhilwara.

Driver

2. Shri Mohammad Asrag Ali S/o Shri Anwar Ali, R/o Near Tejaji Chowk, Bhilwara.

Owner

3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johri with Mr. Lalit Parihar Mr. CS Rathore for Mr. Sandeep Shah

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

02/03/2021

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 22.04.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Nathdwara in Claim Case No. 78/2002 (264/2000)

whereby learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties decided

the claim petition of the appellant and awarded Rs.7,33,000/- as

compensation to the appellant-claimant on account of the injuries

suffered by her in the accident which occurred on 06.05.2000.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the

findings of the Tribunal are erroneous and the amount, which was

actually paid by the appellant-claimant for getting the treatment,

was denied wrongly. He further submits that the appellant

(2 of 4) [CMA-397/2003]

suffered amputation of one leg and virtually her life has become

hell. He submits that the appellant was a young lady of 20 years

and has suffered amputation and other serious injuries only after

18 days of her marriage. He further submits that Tribunal has not

taken into consideration the agony suffered by her and thus,

awarded a meager sum as compensation in this case. Learned

counsel submits that Tribunal has not evaluated the evidence with

respect to the bills of the treatment at Bombay Hospital produced

by the appellant before it. He submits that there are running bills

of the treatment but the Tribunal found some of them to be

genuine and others were discarded on hyper-technical grounds.

Therefore, he prays that the amount of bills which was discarded

should be paid. He also submits that no amount towards pain and

suffering was awarded by the Tribunal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration

only the genuine and authenticated bills produced by the

appellant-claimant for the payment and computation of the award

in this case and the bills were rightly discarded by the Tribunal as

the veracity of the same was not proved. He further submits that

the amount awarded by the Tribunal constitutes a 'just

compensation' in the present case and does not require any

interference by this Court.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the impugned judgment as well as other relevant

record of the case.

A perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the

present case shows that the Tribunal discarded the payment of

certain bills on account of the fact that the receipts of the

(3 of 4) [CMA-397/2003]

payment were not produced before it. The Tribunal however held

that only invoice of the artificial leg has been produced and no

receipt of the payment for fixing the artificial leg was produced

before it therefore, the same is not liable to be paid.

I have scanned through the bills which were produced on

record and found that the running bills and invoices have been

issued in continuation of the treatment received by the appellant-

claimant. It is a fact that appellant was admitted in the Hospital

for almost three months and was constantly being given medicines

during the treatment for which the running bills/invoices were

issued. Merely because the receipts of certain invoices/bills were

not produced before the Tribunal, the same will not become

inadmissible or their veracity will be under doubt. The findings

recorded by the Tribunal are not convincing and therefore, this

Court is of the opinion that the matter is required to be remanded

back to the Tribunal for re-appreciating the bills produced and in

addition, the parties are directed to place on record the receipts, if

any, of the payment made in the Hospital for getting the

treatment.

Since the case is of the year 2002, it is directed that the

parties will appear before the Tribunal on 22.03.2021 and

thereafter as and when called upon by the Tribunal. The appellant-

claimant will be free to agitate the other points for computation of

the award in the present case. Needless to say that the Insurance

Company will also be free to oppose the same and lead evidence,

if any, in their support in accordance with law.

The Tribunal shall record the findings only to the extent

discussed above, particularly on Issue No.3 only, as the findings of

(4 of 4) [CMA-397/2003]

the Tribunal on other issues i.e Issue Nos. 1,2 & 4 are not required

to be interfered with.

The present appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

Learned Tribunal is expected to decide the issue within a

period of three months from today. Record of the Tribunal be sent

back forthwith.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

11-VivekM/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)