Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suraj Singh vs Rashul Kha And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:41279) on 8 October, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:41279]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1606/2017
Suraj Singh S/o Shri Deep Singh, R/o Pawa, Tehsil - Sumerpur,
District - Paliraj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rashul Kha S/o Shri Mohd. Dakha Ji, R/o Sankhwali,
Tehsil - Aahor, District - Jalor, Raj. Driver Of Bus Rj-22-
Pa-1597
2. M/s Khalsa Motors, Station Road Jodhpur, Tehsil Or
District Jodhpur, Branch Office Khalsa Motors, Falna
Station, Tehsil Bali, District Paliraj. Owner Of Bus Rj-22-
Pa-1597
3. Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company
Limited, Branch Office In Front Of Town Hool, Pali District
Pali. Insurance Company Of Bus Rj-22-Pa-1597
4. Ram Das S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, R/o Kawla, Tehsil Aahor,
District Jalor. Raj Driver Of Bus No.rj-19-Pa-5746
5. Marudhar Public Senior Secondary School, Koselao, Tehsil
Sumerpur, District Pali Raj Owner Of Bus No. Rj-19-Pa-
5746
6. Branch Manager, Future General India Insurance
Company Limited, Branch Office Second Floor, Center
Point, Airport Road Or In Front Of N. Collage, Udaipur,
District Udaipur, Raj Deleted On 23-01-2015
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Choudhary
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sunil Vyas.
For Respondents
No.4 & 5 : Mr. Pritam Joshi.
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary.
Ms. Jyoti R. Patel.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
[2024:RJ-JD:41279] (2 of 7) [CMA-1606/2017]
08/10/2024
1. The present Misc. Appeal, seeking enhancement, has been
preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988(hereinafter as 'the Act') against the judgment and award
dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Sumerpur,
District Pali (hereinafter as 'the learned tribunal') in MAC Case
No.81/2014 (691/2014), whereby the learned Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition of the appellant/Claimant therein and
awarded Rs.12,860/- along with interest @ 7% per annum while
holding respondents No.1 to 5 jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation.
2. The brief facts giving rise to instant appeal are that on
12.09.2013, at approximately 2:45 PM, the appellant-Suraj Singh,
along with his wife, Tarakanwar, was traveling from Sanderao to
his village Pawa Khalsa on bus number RJ-22-PA-1597. While en
route, between Basant and Koselav Road, respondent No.1 -
Rasool Khan, who was driving bus number RJ-22-PA-1597 at high
speed and in a reckless manner, abruptly applied the brakes and
brought the bus to a sudden halt in the middle of the road. As a
result, the bus coming from behind, belonging to Marudhar Public
School, Koselav, bearing number RJ-19-PA-5746, driven by
respondent No. 4 - Ramdas, who was also driving at high speed
and in a careless manner, collided with the rear of Khalsa bus.
Due to the collision, the appellant sustained severe and minor
injuries to his back and other parts of his body. He was
immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Koselav, and
subsequently shifted for further treatment to Raj Orthopedic
Hospital, Sumerpur; Shri Vijay Vallabh General Hospital, Sadri;
[2024:RJ-JD:41279] (3 of 7) [CMA-1606/2017]
Chandramani Hospital, Gandhinagar; Shahibaug, Ahmedabad; and
Aastha Orthopedic and Spine Hospital, Ahmedabad. A First
Information Report (FIR) regarding the accident was lodged at
Police Station Takhatgarh, and the police registered Case No.
142/2013 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC). After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, against non-applicants Rasool Khan
and Ramdas under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. At the time
of the accident, the appellant was 45 years old and engaged in
agriculture and labor work, earning approximately Rs. 15,000 per
month. As a result of the serious and minor injuries sustained, the
appellant suffered immense physical and mental pain, along with
permanent disability. Bus number RJ-22-PA-1597, driven by
Rasool Khan (Respondent No. 1), was registered in the name of
Respondent No.2 and insured under Respondent No3. Similarly,
bus number RJ-19-PA-5746, driven by Ramdas-respondent No.4,
was registered under respondent No.5 and insured under
respondent No. 6 and as such, the appellant filed claim petition
seeking compensation of Rs. 32,08,000/- jointly and severally
from the respondents.
3. The appellant contended before the Tribunal that he had
sustained three injuries in total, two simple and one grave injury
to his left side back bone. Despite this, the learned Tribunal, after
examining the evidence, awarded a meager sum of Rs. 12,860/-
as compensation, which the appellant contended was grossly
insufficient and unjust.
4. Now, by way of filing instant appeal, the appellant through
his counsel, submits that the compensation awarded by the
[2024:RJ-JD:41279] (4 of 7) [CMA-1606/2017]
learned Tribunal was grossly inadequate as the severity of the
injuries sustained by the appellant has not been considered. The
learned Tribunal had awarded only Rs. 1,000/- for the three
injuries (two simple and one grave), which was wholly insufficient
in light of the medical reports and the cost of treatment incurred.
The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the
medical expenses incurred were far higher than the amount
awarded, and the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the
same. The appellant had been treated in several hospitals, and the
total medical bills amounted to Rs. 10,760/- which was not fully
accounted for in the award. The counsel for the appellant further
argues that the learned Tribunal had failed to account for the
permanent disability caused by the grave injury to his left back
bone. It was submitted that the appellant was unable to work as
effectively as before, leading to a loss of livelihood. The counsel
for the appellant claimed that the learned Tribunal had failed to
take into account the full evidence presented, including medical
records, treatment reports, and the testimony of the appellant
himself regarding the impact of the injuries on his life and as such,
in light of the severity of the injuries, the medical treatment, and
the loss of income due to permanent disability, the counsel for the
appellant requested that the compensation amount be enhanced
to reflect the true extent of his suffering and damages.
5. Per contra, the respondents, in their reply, disputed the
appellant's claims and submits that the compensation awarded by
the learned Tribunal was fair and based on the available evidence.
They argued that the learned Tribunal had rightly considered the
nature of the injuries and had awarded compensation in line with
[2024:RJ-JD:41279] (5 of 7) [CMA-1606/2017]
the medical reports and the treatment received by the appellant.
The respondents contended that there was no credible evidence to
support the appellant's claim of permanent disability. They submit
that the appellant had not provided any conclusive medical reports
or expert opinions demonstrating that the injuries caused any
lasting incapacity. The learned counsel for the respondents also
argued that the appellant had failed to provide sufficient evidence
regarding the exact nature and extent of the injuries, particularly
the claim of three injuries (two simple and one grave). They
pointed out that the appellant did not undergo an X-ray as
recommended, which was a critical omission in the medical
evidence presented. Furthermore, the counsel for the respondents
asserted that the amount of Rs. 12,860/- was reasonable given
the nature of the injuries, the medical treatment provided, and the
overall circumstances of the case.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
7. This Court, after careful examination of the facts,
submissions, and the record before it, finds that it is well
established that the burden of proof lies on the appellant to
establish the extent and nature of the injuries sustained. The
appellant presented documents related to his treatment, ranging
from Exhibit-34 to Exhibit-70, which included medical reports and
bills. However, a critical medical report--an X-ray that was
recommended but the appellant did not get the x-ray done. The
learned Tribunal, in its discretion, accepted the evidence available
and found that the appellant sustained one injury that was of a
[2024:RJ-JD:41279] (6 of 7) [CMA-1606/2017]
simple nature, as no conclusive evidence of a grave injury was
presented.
8. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/- for
the simple injury sustained by the appellant. The Court finds that
this compensation amount, while minimal, was in line with the
standard compensation practices for simple injuries in similar
cases. The appellant's claim of permanent disability was not
substantiated by concrete medical evidence as no disability
certificate was produced. The learned Tribunal, therefore, did not
award compensation for permanent disability, and this Court finds
no error in the learned Tribunal's reasoning. The learned Tribunal
awarded medical expenses of Rs. 10,760/- and transportation
costs of Rs. 1,100/-. This award is consistent with the treatment
bills produced by the appellant. Given the nature of the treatment
provided at various hospitals, the Court finds that the learned
Tribunal's award of medical expenses was reasonable and in
accordance with the law. The appellant's claim of permanent
disability was unsupported by expert medical opinion. The
appellant had not undergone the recommended X-ray, which could
have clarified the extent of the injuries. In the absence of any
conclusive medical evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly did not
award compensation for permanent disability.
9. In light of the above observations, this Court finds that the
learned Tribunal's judgment was based on the material evidence
presented before it. The appellant's appeal for enhancement of
compensation lacks merit, as the Tribunal's decision was just and
in accordance with the law.
[2024:RJ-JD:41279] (7 of 7) [CMA-1606/2017]
10. In view of the facts, submissions, and the observations of
this Court, it is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award passed
by the learned Tribunal, Sumerpur, in MAC Case No. 81/2014
(691/2014) dated 02.03.2017, is upheld. The compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal was fair and reasonable, and no
further enhancement is warranted.
11. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
79-DJ & pradeep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
