Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khetaram vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:41931) on 2 December, 2023
[2023:RJ-JD:41931]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 244/2004
Khetaram S/o Shri Chunni Lal, age 25 years, R/o Village Janapur,
Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Purshottam S/o Veer Chand, by caste Khandelwal, R/o
Badgaon, Tehsil Sheoganj, Distt. Sirohi.
......Truck Driver
2. Vishnu Agency, 9 Bapu Bazar, Sumerpur, through its
Proprietor Shri Veer chand S/o Hansaji, R/o Sumerpur, Tehsil
Bali, Distt. Pali.
.....Truck Owner
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional
Manager, Divisional office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Rakesh Arora & Mr.Manish
Rajpurohit
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.N.K.Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
02/12/2023
1. The present appeal is filed challenging the award dated
04.07.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Abu Road on the file of MAC Case No.84/1998, wherein
and whereby the claim of the appellant-claimant was partly
allowed granting the compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the injuries
suffered by him.
2. The present appeal is at the instance of the claimant-injured.
His main grievance is that the Tribunal below has committed
wrong by accepting the contributory negligence on the part of the
[2023:RJ-JD:41931] (2 of 4) [CMA-244/2004]
claimant-injured. According to him, there is no contributory
negligence on the part of the injured. The negligence was only
attributable to the driver of the vehicle and the evidence on record
clearly shows that the appellant-injured was on the road side with
his bicycle and he was not in the middle of the road as claimed by
the respondent No.1-driver of the truck. Therefore, the Tribunal
committed wrong in fixing the contributory negligence on the part
of the appellant-injured.
3. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the Tribunal granted meager compensation without
properly appreciating the nature of the injuries sustained by the
appellant-claimant. According to him, the quantum of
compensation requires enhancement.
4. None has appeared and there is no representation on behalf
of the respondents No.1 & 2, the driver and owner of the truck.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
justified the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the
contributory negligence. According to him, the evidence of NAW-1,
the driver of the truck, clearly shows that the accident was not
occurred with his truck and the accident was with the other truck,
which crossed-by the side of his truck. The said theory of accident
as alleged by the driver of the truck was rejected. It is contended
that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence particularly
the Panchnama drafted by the police, which clearly shows that the
scene of occurrence was middle of the road and that itself shows
that there was negligence on the part of the injured also. The
Tribunal considering such evidence rightly fixed 50:50 negligence
on the part of the crime-vehicle and the injured. Such a finding
[2023:RJ-JD:41931] (3 of 4) [CMA-244/2004]
requires no interference. It is also his contention that the Tribunal
has granted compensation under various heads for the injuries
sustained by the injured. Such a fixation was without any error,
which requires no interference.
6. A close scrutiny of the Exhibit-2, the sketch of the scene of
occurrence, shown by learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
clearly demonstrates that the direction of the crime-vehicle is left-
side. The evidence also shows that the road is straight. There is no
obstruction to visibility of the driver of the crime-vehicle. The
scene exposed in the said sketch was not the middle of the road.
It was by the side of the road. Considering the width of the road,
the crime-vehicle could be pass in spite of the position of the
bicycle. Apart from that, the road is straight too and there is no
obstruction to the visibility of the driver of the crime-vehicle. Even
assuming that the injured was on middle of the road, when there
is clearly visibility to the driver, he is not supposed to dash the
injured, who might be fault by going on middle of the road. He
could have taken steps to decelerate the vehicle or at the most, he
could have stopped the vehicle by applying brakes and this was
not done. However, on the contrary, the evidence of AW-1 as well
as the sketch of the scene clearly demonstrates that the injured
was not on the middle of the road and was by the side of the road.
The Tribunal has not considered such evidence before fastening
the contributory negligence of 50% on the appellant-injured. The
said finding is contrary to the evidence on record and such finding
is unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside.
7. So far as the contention with regard to enhancement of the
compensation is concerned, as seen from the nature of injuries,
[2023:RJ-JD:41931] (4 of 4) [CMA-244/2004]
the injured only suffered hip joint injury and other injuries are
simple in nature. The disability certificate produced by the injured
shows that he suffered 6% permanent disability and the Tribunal
accepted the same and granted compensation accordingly. The
other amounts fixed under various heads were commensurate with
the nature of injuries. The finding with regard to the fixation of
compensation requires no interference.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the
Tribunal with respect to negligence on the part of the injured-
appellant is set aside. The remaining finding of the Tribunal is
confirmed. The balance unpaid amount shall be paid along with
the interest as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of two
months from the date of this judgment.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
11-Mrityuanjay Singh/NK
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
