R S R T C vs Daya Lal & Anr on 8 October, 2009

                              SBCMA No.529/98-RSRTC Vs. DAYA LAL & ORS.
                                                        Judgment dt: 8/10/09

                                 1/5


              S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.529/98
                  (RSRTC Vs. Daya Lal & Ors.)
                  DATE OF ORDER : 8/10/2009

           HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI


Mr.Vikas Seol, for the appellant.
Mr.G.R.Bhari, for the respondents.



1.    This appeal has been filed by RSRTC against the award dated

29/4/98 challenging the quantum of compensation of Rs.90,000/-

awarded to the respondent claimant Daya Lal on account of injury

suffered by him in an accident which took place on 16/5/1995 when

he was going as pillion rider on the motor cycle no.RJJ-1909 from

village Decha to Sagwada and the bus no.RJ-03-P-0300 belonging to

appellant RSRTC coming from opposite direction hit the motor cycle.

In the said accident, the claimant suffered injuries in the nature of

four fractures of right leg lower portion, left hand radius bone, and

right leg hip bone. He also suffered injuries on right shoulder and

back bone. The claimant claimed that he was serving in Kuwait and

had to remain in hospital from 16/12/1995 to 3/2/1996 and in Kuwait

for the period 20/3/1996 to 5/2/1997. The compensation of Rs.35
                                SBCMA No.529/98-RSRTC Vs. DAYA LAL & ORS.
                                                         Judgment dt: 8/10/09

                                  2/5


lacs was claimed in the claim petition filed by the claimant. However,

the learned Tribunal deciding the issue no.3 found that the evidence

produced in the form of medical treatment bills justifies the

reimbursement of medical expenses to the extent of Rs.30,000/- and

no evidence regarding his employer in Kuwait had spent Rs.2 lacs on

his treatment was led nor any evidence was brought before the

Tribunal that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was spent on travelling to

Ahmedabad along with his brother and Rs.50,000/- for food etc. It

was further found that there was no evidence on record that he was

working as labour in goldsmith's shop in Kuwait and his monthly

salary was 100 Dinars equivalent to Rs.10,000/- at that time. In view

of the nature of injuries given in the injury report Ex-4, the Tribunal

agreed with the claimant about the nature of injuries, however in the

absence of sufficient details and evidence of expenses actually

incurred by him on his treatment, the Tribunal allowed the

compensation under four different heads and a total compensation of

Rs.90,000/- was granted.



2.    This Court while admitting the present appeal, by stay order
                                SBCMA No.529/98-RSRTC Vs. DAYA LAL & ORS.
                                                         Judgment dt: 8/10/09

                                 3/5


dated 22/10/98 stayed the operation of the impugned award to the

extent of 50% of compensation and the said interim relief was

confirmed by this Court on 5/5/99.



3.    Learned counsel for the RSRTC submitted that even though

there was no concrete evidence before the learned Tribunal for the

medical expenses incurred by the injured, the learned Tribunal has

awarded Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- against

physical and mental harassment, Rs.20,000/- for the expenses

incurred during hospitalization and Rs.20,000/- under the head `misc.

expenses and loss' etc. and, thus, he submitted that Rs.40,000/- has

been awarded by the learned Tribunal without any cogent reason. He

further submitted that the total medical expenses would be

approximately Rs.30,000/- and, therefore, no valid exception can be

taken to the same. He has, therefore, prayed that compensation to the

tune of Rs.50,000/- would have been just in the facts and

circumstances of the case.



4.    As against this, learned counsel for the claimant urges that the
                                 SBCMA No.529/98-RSRTC Vs. DAYA LAL & ORS.
                                                          Judgment dt: 8/10/09

                                  4/5


amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and

fair and need not be interfered in the present appeal.



5.    Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the

impugned award and evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion

that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is slightly

excessive. Though some evidence was produced before the learned

Tribunal about the extent of expenses incurred by the claimant for his

treatment, however, the award of compensation under the head of

misc. expenses and loss at least to the extent of Rs.20,000/- was

justified. It is needless to add that compensation awarded against the

medical expenses to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and for physical and

mental harassment to the extent of Rs.20,000/- is unexceptionable.

The third head under which compensation of Rs.20,000/- for misc.

expenses also appears to be without any basis or evidence on record.



6.    Taking over all view of the matter and to arrive at a figure of

just and fair compensation, this Court is of the opinion that

compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal
                                 SBCMA No.529/98-RSRTC Vs. DAYA LAL & ORS.
                                                          Judgment dt: 8/10/09

                                  5/5


deserves to be reduced by a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Thus, the net

compensation of Rs.60,000/- in favour of the claimant injured would

be just and fair.



7.    Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and impugned award

of learned Tribunal is modified by reducing the compensation of

Rs.90,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. Since 50% of compensation has already

been deposited by the appellant in pursuance of the interim relief

granted by this Court, the remaining amount with interest as directed

by the learned Tribunal may be deposited now within a period of

three months from today.



8.    With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, this

appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.



                                           (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.

item no. 20
baweja/-