1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 279 of 1997
DHULJI
V/S
KARAN SINGH & ORS
Mr. KRISHNA CHAND for Mr. MRIDUL JAIN, for the appellant
Date of Order : 13.7.2009
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimant for
enhancement of the compensation claimed on account of
personal injury, as awarded by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur vide award dated 22.10.1996,
awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- along with interest from
6.11.1995 @ 12% p.a.
According to the claimant on 16.8.1993 he was
traveling along with some goods in delinquent truck No.
RJ27-G-0084. At about 8.15 PM, when the truck was near
Hanumanji Temple, on account of negligent driving of the
truck, the claimant fell down, and became unconscious. With
these facts, he has claimed a total compensation of
Rs.3,36,000/- for permanent disablement.
Learned Tribunal found the issue of negligence in
favour of the claimant. However, assessing compensation
while deciding issue No.4, it has considered, that according
to the claimant he had spent Rs.55,000/- in the treatment,
2
another sum of Rs.45,000/- was said to have been spent on
the attendants, and suffered a loss of Rs.65,000/- in
income, and has also claimed to have become mentally weak.
As against this, he has led no evidence for any permanent
disablement, no medical certificate has been produced to
prove, that his working efficiency has been adversely
affected. It was found that the claimant was found to be
serving in Mumbai, but he has not given details of the
employer, and there is no document to show that he remained
indoor patient at Ahmedabad for 1½ months, nor any details
of expenditure, said to have been incurred on the
attendants, has been given. Likewise, medical bills produced
totaled to Rs.726.36 Paisa only. In view of this, the
learned Tribunal made an assessment of compensation for
personal injury on parameters laid down in Section 163A, and
assessed non-pecuniary compensation at Rs.7000/-, and
awarded another sum of Rs.8000/- for various other
expenditures and inconveniences, including medical
expenditure.
Learned counsel for the appellant invited my
attention to the documents Ex.9 and 10, to contend, that the
finding recorded in para 10 is bad. Even after going through
Ex.9 and 10, I do not find any error in the findings, as
Ex.9 which is the hospital ticket of the claimant does
clearly recite the condition on discharge, and mentions,
that he is walking freely. He was admitted for some head
injury and suspected paraplegia, but then he was discharged
cured. In such circumstances, in my view, the finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.4 cannot be
said to be suffering from any error.
3
The appeal thus, has no force and is, dismissed.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/tarun/
