Ganesh vs Ram Prakash @ Ram Buksh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 15244 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1137/2006

Ganesh S/o. Bhanwarlal, B/c Rav, Aged 27 years, R/o. Adarsh Nagar at present Kamal Ka Kuan, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara.

----Appellant/Claimant Versus

1. Ram Prakash alias Ram Buksh S/o. Tara Singh, R/o. Dinarpura, District Sikar.

---Owner

2. Mahaveer Singh S/o. Rameshwar Singh, R/o. Jarethi, District Sikar.

---Driver

3. The National Insurance Company Ltd., through Divisional Officer, Suchna Kendra, Bhilwara.

                                        ----Respondents/Non-petitioners


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Senior Advocate
                               assisted by Mr. Saurabh Modi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. L. D. Khatri



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                               Judgment

01/10/2021

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 25.08.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.391/2004, whereby the

learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence

on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the

claim petition of the appellant-claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.

4,40,700/- in favour of the appellant-claimant on account of the

injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on

07.09.2003.

(2 of 5) [CMA-1137/2006]

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant-claimants submits

that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.4 is incorrect. He

submits that though it was brought on record that the appellant

was serving as 'Doffer' in the Super Syncotex (India) Ltd.,

Gulabpura, the monthly income of the appellant was assessed as

Rs.1500/- only. He submits that in the light of the evidence of co-

worker Bhomaram @ Bheem Singh, it was proved before the

Tribunal that the appellant was working in the Super Syncotex

(India) Ltd., Gulabpura on the post of 'Doffer' and his salary was

Rs.3,240/- per month. He further submits that there is no reason

to disbelieve the salary certificate issued by the competent

authority of the company where he was working. Thus, the

amount of Rs.1500/- taken into consideration for computation of

the award in the present case is on the face of it is incorrect and

erroneous.

Learned senior counsel further submits that since the

appellant was performing the work of 'Doffer; and in view of the

amputation of the right leg below the hip, it virtually made him

100% incapable to perform the work, therefore, taking into

consideration the manner of work performed by a Doffer because

of 80% permanent disability, the appellant should be treated as

100% disabled.

Learned senior counsel submits that no amount towards the

loss of future prospects was awarded in the light of the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma vs.

Haryana Roadways 2014 ACJ 692 and Pappu Deo Yadav vs.

Naresh Kumar and ors. AIR 2020 SC 4424. Thus, in view of

the submissions made above, learned senior counsel submits that

(3 of 5) [CMA-1137/2006]

the award in the present case is required to be re-computed and

suitably enhanced.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal had taken into consideration

all the relevant evidence brought before it and after analyzing the

same rightly decided the claim application of the appellant-

claimant vide order dated 25.08.2005. He further submitted that

the compensation awarded in the present case is a 'just

compensation' and it does not warrant any interference by this

Court.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the judgment dated 25.08.2005 as well as other

relevant record of the case.

The documents exhibited before the Tribunal along with the

affidavit of the appellant clearly shows that the appellant was

working as 'Doffer' in Super Syncotex (India) Ltd., Gulabpura.

Salary certificate produced and exhibited before the Tribunal as

Exhibit-8 also shows the monthly income of the appellant as

Rs.3,240/-. Besides this, the testimony of Bhom Singh clearly

goes to show that the appellant was working as 'Doffer' in the

factory at Gulabpura and was earning Rs.3,240/- per month. The

fact mentioned in the affidavit of the appellant that on account of

having suffered amputation of the right leg, his services were

dispensed with by the employer, is also not rebutted from the

respondent side. As the appellant was unable to perform any kind

of job, therefore, it can safely be presumed that the services of

the appellant were dispensed with. The age of the appellant at

the time of the accident as reflected in the documents produced

(4 of 5) [CMA-1137/2006]

before the Tribunal was 26 years and the same is also not

disputed.

Taking into consideration the evidence brought on record and

the affidavit of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that

monthly income of the appellant should have been assessed as

Rs.3,240/- instead of Rs.1500/-.

In view of the disability suffered by the appellant, this Court

is of the view that on account of amputation of the right leg from

below the hip, it virtually rendered the appellant unable to

perform the services as 'Doffer' and, any other job, therefore, the

disability in the present case should have been assessed as 100%

instead of 80%.

The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the loss

of future prospects in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana

Roadways 2014 ACJ 692 and Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh

Kumar and ors. AIR 2020 SC 4424. Therefore, the same is

required to be taken into consideration while recomputing the

award in the present case.

Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted the

re-calculation of the award in the present case which is as under:-

Income Loss =3240X12X17 =Rs. 6,60,960/- Future Prospects = 40% X 6,60,960/- =Rs. 2,64,384/- Medical Bills =Rs.3,700/- =Rs. 3,700/-

Hospitalization Expenses/Bed =600X13 days =Rs. 7,800/-

Pain & Suffering =Rs.1,25,000/- =Rs. 1,25,000/- Conveyance Exp. =Rs.2,000/- =Rs. 2,000/-

                 Total Award                          =Rs.10,63,844/-
(-) Amount already awarded
    by MACT, Bhilwara                                 =Rs. 4,40,700/-
            Total Amount Enhanced                     =Rs. 6,23,144/-



                                                                             (5 of 5)                  [CMA-1137/2006]

The other factors employed by the Tribunal are unchanged as

the same are in conformity with law.

In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is partly

allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay

the enhanced amount of Rs.6,23,144/- (Rs. Six Lac Twenty Three

Thousand One Hundred Forty Four Only) in favour of the

appellant-claimant in addition to the amount of compensation

already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated

25.08.2005 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced

amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of

the claim petition, till the same is paid.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 244-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)