Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Girdharilal vs Fateh Singh And Ors (2024:Rj-Jd:38773) on 19 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:38773]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 743/2002
Girdharilal s/o Shri Budhmal, r/o 45-B, Shakti Nagar, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Fateh Singh s/o Shri Prem Singh, r/o Khumanji ka Guda,
Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.
2. Laxmilal s/o Shri Jamnalal Moondra r/o 67, Inside
Delhigate, Udaipur.
3. United India Insurance Company ltd. Divisional Office,
Shastri Circle Road, Udaipur and Divisional Office at 12 th
Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav for claimant
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav for respondent-
Insurance Company.
Mr. Shambhoo Singh for respondents
Nos.1 and 2.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
19/09/2024
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant
claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['the
Act of 1988'] challenging the validity of the judgment/award dated
18.02.2000 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Udaipur in MAC
Case No.357/1995 whereby the claim petition was partly allowed
and the compensation was awarded to the tune of Rs.73,000/-
with the interest @ 8% per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.1995 at about
8.30am, while the appellant claimant was proceeding from the
house situated at Shakti Nagar, Udaipur to his shop on his scooter
[2024:RJ-JD:38773] (2 of 4) [CMA-743/2002]
on the road leading towards Surajpole and when he reached
opposite town hall, at that relevant point of time, a Tanker bearing
registration No.RJ-270-1293, driven in a rash and negligent
manner from behind, hit the appellant and his scooter due to
which, he received grievous injuries including a skull injury. He
was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital and from there, he
was referred to the hospital at Ahmedabad (Gujarat). After being
admitted in the hospital for various days, he regained
consciousness and was left with permanent disability to the extent
of 30% resulting into loss of memory, loss of vision of right eye,
stiffness in shoulders, etc.
3. Summons were issued to the respondents. Respondents
Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statements. They pleaded not guilty
and denied the averments made by the claimant. In support of the
claim petition, oral as well as documentary evidence was produced
by the claimant to prove his case. In the rebuttal, respondents did
not lead any evidence.
4. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the issues and
as a corollary, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.73,000/- and
thus, aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred the present
misc. appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant claimant submits that the
learned Tribunal has seriously erred in facts and law of the case.
In this context, he further submits that the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal in toto is too meager and slightly on a
lower side, as the claimant had produced sufficient documentary
evidence such as medical bills, period of hospitalization (Ex.8),
[2024:RJ-JD:38773] (3 of 4) [CMA-743/2002]
etc., but the learned Tribunal overlooked this aspect and awarded
such a meager amount in favour of the appellant/claimant. He,
thus, craves for enhancement/modification of the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-
Insurance Company and learned counsel representing the
respondents Nos.1 and 2, oppose the submissions advanced by
the appellant's counsel and pray for dismissal of these appeals.
7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
Bar and have carefully gone through the material available on
record.
8. This Court finds that in view of the guidelines laid down by
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, 2024 ['RSLSA, 2024']
for Settlement of MACT Cases in Lok Adalats, the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the
appellant/claimant, deserves to be enhanced.
9. Accordingly, this misc. appeal preferred by the
appellant/claimant is partly allowed. The judgment/award dated
18.02.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Udaipur in MAC Case No.357/1995, is
enhanced/modified. Both the parties were directed to submit a
joint calculation as per the guidelines of RSLSA, 2024, which is as
under:-
CALCULATION AS PER GUIDELINES OF RSLSA, 2024:-
PARTICULARS AMOUNT in Rs.
Simple Injuries (3 in number); (Rs.3,500/- x 3) Rs.10,500/-
Permanent Disability is 30% Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs.35,000/- + Rs.5,500/- x 30)
Hospitalization of 21 days as per Exhibit-8 Rs.12,600/-
(21 x Rs.600/-)
[2024:RJ-JD:38773] (4 of 4) [CMA-743/2002]
Medical Bills/Medical Expenses Rs.25,000/-
Pain & Sufferings of 15% of total award Rs.33,465/-
excluding medical bills.
(Rs.10,500/- + Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.12,600/- x
15%)
TOTAL Rs.2,81,565/-
(Less) Awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.73,000/-
ENHANCED AWARD Rs.2,08,565/-
10. The quantum of compensation payable to the claimant is
further enhanced by Rs.2,08,565/- in the terms stated above.
The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit. The
respondents are accordingly directed to deposit the said enhanced
compensation to the claimant within a period of 'two months' from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which, the
interest shall stand enhanced @ 7.5% per annum.
11. No order as to costs. Record be returned to the learned
Tribunal forthwith.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
123-/Devesh Thanvi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
