1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
VAGA VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY & ORS.
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2578/2007
against the judgment and award
dated 14.08.2007 passed by the
learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Addl.District & Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track No.4), Udaipur , in Motor
Accident Claim Case No.612/2006.
DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 06.08.08
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA
Mr.Deepak Menaria for the appellant.
Mr.R.K.Singhal for the respondents.
BY THE COURT :
The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-
appellant against the judgment and award dated 14.08.2007
passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Addl. District & Sessions Judge,(Fast Track No.4), Udaipur ,
in Motor Accident Claim Case No.612/2006, whereby the
2
learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in
favour of the claimant-appellant and against respondents,
holding them jointly and severally responsible for the payment
of total compensation of Rs.26,000/-(inclusive the amount
awarded under ‘No Fault Liability’) with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 10.02.05
and further directed them to make the entire payment to
claimant appellant.
The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the
disposal of the appeal are that on 11.04.04 , the claimant-
appellant was going from Jhadol, towards Phalasiya by
travelling in jeep bearing No.RJ.27-T-0861. When the jeep
reached near the gate of RSEB office, at village Keerat, a jeep
coming from Phalasiya, bearing No.RJ.06-T-0325 which was
being rashly and negligently driven by its driver Babu, non-
claimant No.3, dashed against the jeep in which the claimant
appellant was travelling, as a result of which, the claimant
appellant sustained several grievous injuries. The report of the
said incident was lodged at Police Station, Phalasiya , were
Cr.Case No.41/2004 was registered and after usual
investigation, the Investigating Officer came to the finding that
3
the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
jeep by its driver Babu ,non-claimant No.3. As such, a
challan was filed against him for the offences under section
279, 337 338 and 304-A IPC, before the court of Addl.Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol. It was also stated that at the time
of accident the said jeep was owned by Chhagan Lal, non-
claimant No.2 and was insured with National Insurance
Company, non-claimant No.1.
The claimant submitted a claim petition before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Fast
Track No.4,Udaipur on 10.02.2005, under Section 166 of the
M.V. Act, for awarding adequate compensation on account of
injuries sustained by him in the said motor accident. In the
claim petition, it was averred that the claimant was only of 36
years at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.5,000/-
per month by doing masonry work and on account of said
accident, he became incapable to undertake the masonry work.
It was submitted that he remained under treatment for several
months . It was further submitted that due to injuries, he
suffered a lot of monitory loss as well as mental shock. On the
basis of these facts, a total sum of Rs.4,48,000/- was claimed
4
against non-claimants, as compensation under various heads.
Notices of the claim petition were served on the non-claimants.
Non-claimant No.1,insurer of the said jeep , filed its
reply and denied the allegations, pleaded in the claim petition
and further stated that accident occurred due to the clashing
of both the jeeps and it happened due to the rash and
negligent driving of Jeep No.RJ.27-T-0861 by its driver. It was
further averred that the claimant appellant has not made the
driver, owner and insurer of jeep No.RJ.27-T-0861 as
partiesand further stated that the non-claimant No.3, driver of
the jeep was not in possession of a valid and effective
licence at the time of accident and the driver was also not in
possession of permit to drive the vehicle in the alleged route
and the insurer was not informed of the occurrence of the
accident in time, as such, the Insurance Company cannot be
held responsible for the payment of compensation and it was
prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.
Chhaganlal, non-claimant No.2, owner and Babu, non-
claimant No.3, driver of the jeep, filed their reply and denied
all the allegations pleaded in the claim petition and further
5
stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of jeep No.RJ.27-T-0861 by its driver. It was also stated
that since jeep was insured with non-claimant No.1, insurer,
therefore, in case of compensation, the Insurance Company is
responsible for the payment of same, and prayed to dismiss
the claim petition against them.
The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties,
framed relevant issues with regard to responsibility of causing
accident and with regard to quantum of compensation.
The claimant-appellant got examined herself as AW/1
and also got exhibited documents produced by him , Ex.2, to
Ex.15 in support of his claim. In rebuttal, the non-claimants
neither got examined any witness nor exhibited any
document in defence.
The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, held
that due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No.RJ.06-T-0325
by its driver, the accident occurred and in that accident the
claimant -appellant sustained several injuries. Vide its
judgment and award dated 14.08.07 , after considering the age
6
and income of the claimant, awarded a total compensation of
Rs.26,000/-, plus interest thereon @ 9% per annum, holding
non-applicants jointly and severally responsible for the payment
of the same.
The claimant-appellant, being felt aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, as awarded by
the learned Tribunal, has preferred this appeal against the
judgment and award dated 14.08.07 and made submissions
for enhancement of the compensation amount. Notice of
appeal was given to the respondents, record of the case was
called and the parties were heard.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly
considered and appreciated the facts, with regard to
determination of adequate compensation and determined a
meagre amount of compensation, that is required to be
modified and enhanced. It was further submitted that the
claimant has received several injuries on his person and on
the basis of injuries sustained by him, a certificate in respect
of permanent disability had been issued by the Doctor, Ex.13,
7
by which his efficiency has been found to be reduced by 10%.
It was stated that looking to the age of the appellant, as proved
to be 38 years and taking into consideration his income ,
Rs.200/- per day, a reasonable compensation, under the
head of permanent disability, should have been determined.
But the learned tribunal has determined compensation without
any basis ,a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- under that head
and awarded a petty amount for the pain and agony and
suffering and medical expenses and in this way, a total amount
of Rs.26,000/- has been awarded. On the basis of these
submissions, it was urged that adequate compensation may
be determined and awarded, and the appeal may be allowed.
On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent
supported the judgment and award passed by the learned
tribunal and submitted that reasonable compensation has been
awarded and there is no scope for further enhancement.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the
finding and conclusion drawn thereon.
The main question remains for consideration in the
8
appeal is whether the awarded compensation is not adequate,
just and reasonable, and it requires enhancement ?.
In this respect , I have seen the submission of claimant,
as well as the material placed from his side. The claimant
appellant has stated that several injuries have been sustained
by him in accident, he remained hospitalised for several days
and plaster treatment was done. On the basis of injuries
sustained by him , permanent disability has been certified by a
team of Govt. doctors upto the extent of 10%. Injuries are
further supported by his statement, as well as other material
placed on record and there is no rebuttal from the other side.
The learned tribunal has determined a lumpsum compensation
of Rs.20,000/- in this respect. Looking to the age and injuries
sustained by him, and the income as stated by the claimant, I
find that the awarded compensation in this respect is on the
lower side, and is not found just and reasonable. Taking into
consideration the percentage of disability shown by the
doctors, vide Ex.13, it comes to more that Rs.35,000/- but the
learned tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- under this head.
Considering the over all facts of the case, an additional
9
sum of compensation of Rs.15,000/ is required to be added
in the awarded compensation of Rs.26,000/-. That comes to
Rs.41,000/- Considering the facts, the claimant appellant is
also entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount, at
the same rate as awarded by the learned tribunal, i.e. 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, in the net
result, the appeal is partly allowed and the awarded
compensation of Rs.26,000/- is enhanced by Rs.15,000/- ,
that comes to Rs.41,000/. Further, the appellant will get
interest @ 9% per annum , on the enhanced amount, from the
date of filing of the claim petition. Rest of the judgment is
confirmed. No order as to costs.
(MANAK MOHTA), J.
l.george