{"id":94969,"date":"2008-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-04T02:14:42","modified_gmt":"2018-03-03T20:44:42","slug":"shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR                 RAJASTHAN\n                 AT JODHPUR.\n\n\n                        JUDGMENT\n\n\n        SHYAM LAL VS.         DHOKAL RAM & ORS.\n\n\n              S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 424\/1997\n\n            against the judgment and award dated\n            24.01.1997 passed by the learned Judge,\n            Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat, Camp\n            at Jaitaran in       MACT Claim         Case\n            No.18\/1994.\n                             .............\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT               :               14th July ,2008\n\n\n\n                        PRESENT\n\n\n\n            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA\n\nMr.S.K.Sankhla for the appellant.\nMr.Sanjeev Johari for respondents.\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
            This appeal has been filed by the claimant-<\/p>\n
appellant    against    the   judgment    and    award    dated<\/p>\n
24.01.1997     passed   by    Judge,   Motor   Accident   Claims
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
Tribunal, Sojat, Camp Jaitaran              in MACT Claim Case<\/p>\n
No.18\/1994, whereby, the learned Tribunal                has partly<\/p>\n
allowed the claim      petition and has awarded a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/-       plus    interest   @    15%    per   annum    as<\/p>\n
compensation in favour of the claimant and against non-<\/p>\n
claimants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on<\/p>\n
27.06.93 at night      at about 12.15 AM, Chandra Prakash,<\/p>\n
Shyam Lal , Natwarlal and Bhanwarlal, all residents of<\/p>\n
Beawar, were going from Bilara to Beawar by travelling<\/p>\n
in Car bearing No.RRN 1357. When the car reached                near<\/p>\n
village Nimbaj, while        it was plying on By-pass State<\/p>\n
Highway, a     truck bearing No.RNS-7177 was coming from<\/p>\n
opposite direction,        which was being driven rashly and<\/p>\n
negligently   by       Dhokal     Ram,         non-claimant     No.1<\/p>\n
(respondent No.1) suddenly came to the wrong side of the<\/p>\n
road    and   dashed   with the car        violently, as a result of<\/p>\n
which Bhanwarlal, (driver of the car ),Natwarlal, Shyamlal<\/p>\n
(appellant)   and   Chandra      Prakash      (occupants   of    car)<\/p>\n
sustained severe injuries. All the injured were immediately<\/p>\n
admitted in the hospital and during treatment, Bhanwarlal
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
( driver of the car), succumbed to his injuries. A report of<\/p>\n
the     accident was lodged at P.S. Jaitaran .      Police, after<\/p>\n
usual investigation, filed the challan against the driver of<\/p>\n
the   truck    non-claimant   No.1   (respondent   No.1)      for<\/p>\n
offences under Sec. 279 and 337,338 and 304-A IPC. It<\/p>\n
was stated that the truck was owned by respondents No.2<\/p>\n
and     was insured with respondent No.3. Separate Claim<\/p>\n
Petitions , i.e. Claim case No.87\/1993, 21\/1994 and<\/p>\n
18\/1994 were filed by Smt.Prem, w\/o Bhanwarlal & Ors,<\/p>\n
Natwarlal      s\/o Chhotulal and Shyam Lal s\/o Bhanwarlal<\/p>\n
(appellant),    respectively which were disposed of by the<\/p>\n
aforesaid common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      It was submitted in claim case No.18\/1994 filed by<\/p>\n
injured Shyam Lal that at the time of accident, he was 30<\/p>\n
years    old and was   engaged in selling lottery tickets and<\/p>\n
from that job he used to earn about Rs.3,000\/- per month.<\/p>\n
Due to         several serious injuries, he remained under<\/p>\n
treatment for     long time and during that period he      could<\/p>\n
not earn any income and also incurred       heavy expenses in<\/p>\n
treatment while visiting different hospitals. Due to       these<\/p>\n
injuries, it was also stated that he has lost      vision of one
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
eye and also his memory has been adversely effected and<\/p>\n
he became permanently disabled,(vide Ex.38), resulting in<\/p>\n
loss of income completely. Thus he has filed claim      for   a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.14,05,000\/- on different heads and        prayed to<\/p>\n
allow the same against all the respondents.<\/p>\n
     Non-claimants No.1 and 2, driver and owner of the<\/p>\n
truck, No.RNS 7177, though served with the notices, but did<\/p>\n
not file any reply, therefore, exparte proceedings were<\/p>\n
initiated against them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Reply to the claim petition was filed on behalf of non-<\/p>\n
claimant No.3, National Insurance Co. Ltd., in which it was<\/p>\n
stated that   the accident occurred due to the       rash and<\/p>\n
negligent driving of Car No.RRM 1357 by its driver. It was<\/p>\n
also submitted   that     the owner, as well as the insurer of<\/p>\n
the car, were necessary parties , they should have been<\/p>\n
made parties to the case. It was stated that the claim case<\/p>\n
was required to be dismissed for non-jointer of necessary<\/p>\n
parties. It was further stated that the truck was being used<\/p>\n
against the terms of the Insurance Policy as the driver of<\/p>\n
the truck was not possessing valid licence. Further the
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
registered owner of the truck has not been disclosed and<\/p>\n
he has not been made       party, therefore,   the Insurance<\/p>\n
Company could not be made            liable     to pay any<\/p>\n
compensation to the claimant     and prayed to dismiss the<\/p>\n
claim petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     As all the three claim petitions related to one single<\/p>\n
accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal jointly tried claim<\/p>\n
cases Nos.87\/1993, 21\/1994 and 18\/1994 and decided the<\/p>\n
same, by common judgment and award.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the<\/p>\n
following common issues were framed:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “1-\u0906\u092f \u0926 \u0928 \u0915 27.6.93 \u0915 \u0938\u092e\u092f \u092e\u0927\u092f\u0930 \u0924 \u0915 \u092e \u091c
\n           \u0928\u0928\u092e \u091c \u0930 \u0921 \u092c \u0908 \u092a \u0938 \u092a\u0930 \u0905\u092a \u0930     \u0938. 1 \u0926 \u0930   \u0905\u092a\u0928
\n           \u0935 \u0939\u0928 \u091f\u0915 \u0938\u0916\u092f \u0906\u0930 \u090f\u0928 \u090f\u0938 7177 \u0915 \u0924\u091c \u0930\u092b\u0924 \u0930
\n           \u0917\u0932\u092b\u0924 \u090f\u0935 \u0932 \u092a\u0930\u0935 \u0939’ \u0938 \u091a\u0932 \u0915\u0930      \u0930
\n                                         ) \u091f
\n                                           + \u0928 \u0915 \u0930\u0930\u0924 \u0915.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           \u091c\u091c\u0938\u0915 \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0923 \u092e\u0938\u0935\u0930\u092a \u0936 \u092d\u0935\u0930\u0932 \u0932 \u0915. \u092e5\u0924\u092f) \u0915 \u0930\u0930\u0924
\n           \u0939)\u0908 ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2- \u0906\u092f \u0909\u092a\u0930 \u0915     \u0930\n                           ) \u091f\n                             + \u0928 \u0915 \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0923 \u092e\u0938\u0935\u0930\u092a \u092a \u0930 \u0936\n           \u0936\u092f \u092e\u0932 \u0932 \u090f\u0935 \u0936 \u0928\u091f\u0935\u0930\u0932 \u0932 \u0915 \u0917\u092d \u0930 \u092a\u09155 \u0928\u0924 \u0915. \u091a \u091f:\n           \u0915 \u0930\u0930\u0924 \u0939)\u0908 ?\n                                 6<\/span>\n\n            3- \u0906\u092f \u092a \u0930 \u0917\u0923 \u0915\u0928\u0924\u092a\u0915 \u0930' \u0939?\n            \u0924 \u0926\u0915\u0924\u0928 ?\n\n\n            4- \u0906\u092f \u0905\u092a \u0930 \u0938. 3 \u0915 \u091c\u0935 \u092c \u092e \u0917 \u092a\u0924 \u0915 \u0906> \u0930 \u092a\u0930\n            \u092a \u0930 \u0917\u0923 \u0915\u0928\u0924\u092a\u0915 \u0930' \u0928\u0939' \u0939? ?\n\n\n            5- \u0906\u092f \u0935 \u0939\u0928 \u0938\u0916\u092f \u0906\u0930 \u0906\u0930 \u090f\u092e 1357 \u0915 \u092e \u0928\u0932\u0915\n            \u0935 \u092c \u092e \u0915\u092e\u092a\u0928 \u0915 \u092a\u0915\u0915 \u0930 \u0928 \u092c\u0928 \u092f \u091c \u0928 \u0915 \u0915 \u0930\u0923\n            \u092e \u0917 \u092a\u0924 \u0915 \u092c\u092c\u0932 \u0916 \u0930\u0930\u091c \u0939? ?\n\n\n\n            6- \u0906\u092f    \u092c\u0930 \u0935\u0915     \u0930\n                               ) \u091f\n                                 + \u0928   \u0905\u092a \u0930   \u0938. 1 > \u0915\u0932\u0930 \u092e\n            \u091a \u0932\u0915 \u0915 \u092a \u0938 \u0935?\u0926 \u0932 \u0908\u0938:\u0938 \u0928\u0939' \u0930 ?\n\n\n            7- \u0905\u0928)\u0924 \u0937\u0964\"\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
       During the trial of the case, from the claimants’ side<\/p>\n
AW\/1 Smt.Prem, AW\/2 Natwarlal, and AW\/3 Shyam Lal<\/p>\n
were    examined,    their   statements   were   recorded    and<\/p>\n
relevant documents were got exhibited.         From the side of<\/p>\n
non-claimants, no evidence was produced.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       After hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal held<\/p>\n
vide common judgment and award dated 24.01.1997 that<\/p>\n
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by<\/p>\n
both the drivers of said truck and car, resulting in occurring
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
death of car driver and causing injuries to others including ,<\/p>\n
Shyam Lal (appellant). The learned tribunal, decided the<\/p>\n
other issues No.4,5 and 6 with regard to non-joinder of<\/p>\n
necessary    parties,   and truck driver was not having valid<\/p>\n
licence against insurer of truck for want of proof and on<\/p>\n
the contrary learned tribunal found driver’s licence of truck<\/p>\n
driver on record. The learned tribunal, further considering<\/p>\n
the age of 33 years of the injured , injuries sustained by<\/p>\n
him and further holding       total loss of   yearly income as<\/p>\n
assessed by learned tribunal Rs.28,800\/-,        and taking the<\/p>\n
multiplier    of 10,      assessed the loss of income of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,88,000\/-. The learned tribunal further     deducted \u00bd of<\/p>\n
the amount on account of one time lump sum payment ,<\/p>\n
thus, determined        Rs.1,44,000\/-     and further awarded<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.60,000\/-         on other heads, thus, total<\/p>\n
compensation in round figure determined          Rs.2,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
but the learned    tribunal   awarded only upto 50% out      of<\/p>\n
the   said   sum to claimant appellant on the basis that<\/p>\n
driver , owner and insurer of the offending truck were held<\/p>\n
responsible for compensation            upto 50%. Thus      net<\/p>\n
compensation award of Rs.1,00,000\/- recoverable from the<\/p>\n
said respondents in claim Case No.18\/1994 related to this
\n                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal, along with interest @ 15% per annum, from the<\/p>\n
date of filing of the claim petitions from the respondents<\/p>\n
i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the said truck and holding<\/p>\n
jointly and severally responsible for the payment of said<\/p>\n
compensation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The claimant-appellant Shyam Lal in MACT Claim Case<\/p>\n
No.18\/1994, being      aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the<\/p>\n
finding on issues      No.1 and 2, and on               amount of<\/p>\n
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal vide said<\/p>\n
judgment and award , has preferred this appeal for setting<\/p>\n
aside and correcting the finding on issue No.1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
also for quashing the findings with regard to deductions<\/p>\n
on account of lump sum payment                 and on account of<\/p>\n
holding 50% responsibility    of the truck driver in causing<\/p>\n
accident.   The   appellant       has   also    filed   appeal   for<\/p>\n
enhancement of the amount of compensation.               Notice of<\/p>\n
appeal was given to respondents, record of the case was<\/p>\n
called .Parties were heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     During the course of arguments, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant submitted that the learned tribunal has not
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
properly considered and appreciated the material available<\/p>\n
on record and gave an erroneous finding on issues. It was<\/p>\n
contended that the conclusion drawn with regard to issue<\/p>\n
No.1, is not based on      correct appreciation of material.<\/p>\n
From the side of claimant,         evidence was produced to<\/p>\n
establish that   accident was caused by rash and negligent<\/p>\n
driving of truck driven by Dhokal Ram. It was submitted<\/p>\n
that there was no rebuttal from the opposite side, but the<\/p>\n
learned tribunal   gave much emphasis on Ex.4, site plan,<\/p>\n
prepared by the police during investigation, and on that<\/p>\n
basis, concluded the issue while      holding that    both the<\/p>\n
drivers were at negligence and held them        responsible for<\/p>\n
causing the accident.   During the course of argument, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the       appellant, drew my attention<\/p>\n
towards the finding     arrived    by the tribunal   and other<\/p>\n
material available on record in this respect, and again<\/p>\n
stressed that the concerned car No.RRN-1357 in which the<\/p>\n
claimant was sitting, was going on its right side but it was<\/p>\n
the respondent     No.1, who       drew the car in rash and<\/p>\n
negligent manner and caused the accident. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel also urged that the police, after fair investigation,<\/p>\n
has filed charge sheet, holding     sole   responsibility of the
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
truck driver for causing accident. It was submitted that the<\/p>\n
finding on issue No.1 is required to be              set aside and<\/p>\n
quashed. The learned counsel for the appellant              further<\/p>\n
contended that the learned tribunal              has not properly<\/p>\n
considered the material, while determining the quantum of<\/p>\n
compensation. It was submitted that it has been proved by<\/p>\n
the appellant that at the time of accident , appellant used<\/p>\n
to earn Rs. 3,000\/- to 4,000\/- per month, by selling lottery<\/p>\n
tickets. But due to injuries sustained by him, it was urged<\/p>\n
that he became totally incapable to earn. But the learned<\/p>\n
tribunal has wrongly assessed his income             as Rs.28,800\/-<\/p>\n
per   annum.      Further,     without    properly    applying   the<\/p>\n
multiplier,      considering    his      age,    determined      the<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.2,88,000\/-. It was contended that              it<\/p>\n
has been established on record that at the time of accident,<\/p>\n
his age was 33 years and in this way the multiplier should<\/p>\n
have been applied of 17 but the learned tribunal has applied<\/p>\n
the multiplier of 10.        It was contended by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel       that the tribunal again has committed a grave<\/p>\n
error, in deducting 50 % of the sum i.e. Rs.1,44,000\/- out<\/p>\n
of assessed compensation amount                 of Rs.2,88,000\/-on<\/p>\n
account of      one time lump sum payment.            It was urged
\n                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
that   such type of    deduction was not justifiable and was<\/p>\n
illegal. The learned counsel also contended that the tribunal<\/p>\n
has awarded Rs.60,000\/- compensation under other heads,<\/p>\n
but taking into consideration the injuries sustained by him<\/p>\n
and the    loss   incurred by him in long treatment ,      this<\/p>\n
amount was meagre one.        It was submitted that in this<\/p>\n
way, the learned tribunal assessed the total compensation<\/p>\n
of Rs.2,00,000\/-. Further      50% of the so determined<\/p>\n
amount, again has been deducted and on account of that<\/p>\n
the responsibility in causing the accident of the truck driver,<\/p>\n
has been held up to 50% and in this way only Rs.1,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
have been awarded as compensation. On the basis of these<\/p>\n
submissions, it was stated that the tribunal has first<\/p>\n
wrongly concluded issue No.1 , holding the responsibility of<\/p>\n
both the drivers in causing the accident. In this respect, it<\/p>\n
was also   contended that even in      case of holding     the<\/p>\n
responsibility of both the drivers in causing the accident,<\/p>\n
the claimant was an occupant of the vehicle. Thus, he could<\/p>\n
not be held responsible for any contribution in causing the<\/p>\n
accident. Therefore,    the claimant was entitled to receive<\/p>\n
compensation from them but the learned tribunal has not<\/p>\n
properly applied the principle of law. Like wise, the learned
\n                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
tribunal again    committed error in deducting   the sum on<\/p>\n
baseless grounds.     It was urged that such a finding was<\/p>\n
erroneous.       On the basis of these submissions, it was<\/p>\n
prayed that the impugned judgment and award may be set<\/p>\n
aside to this extent and adequate     compensation may be<\/p>\n
awarded.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents, refuted the contentions and supported the<\/p>\n
finding given by the learned tribunal. It was further<\/p>\n
submitted that the learned tribunal has     rightly held from<\/p>\n
the material available on record, that the accident occurred<\/p>\n
due to the rash and negligent driving     of both the drivers<\/p>\n
and on that basis, has rightly held the responsibility of the<\/p>\n
truck driver, owner, and the Insurance Company        for the<\/p>\n
payment      of compensation upto 50% of the determined<\/p>\n
amount. On the basis of these submissions, it was prayed<\/p>\n
that there is no scope for interference in the judgment   and<\/p>\n
the appeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     I have considered the rival submissions and perused<\/p>\n
the finding      on each issue and    the conclusion drawn
\n                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
thereon.   I have also gone through the record of the case.<\/p>\n
     The main      points remain for consideration     in the<\/p>\n
appeal are that whether the finding given by the      learned<\/p>\n
tribunal, on    issue No.1 as to the responsibility in causing<\/p>\n
the accident is not correct and requires      modification ?.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the compensation determined and awarded by<\/p>\n
the learned tribunal , is not just , proper and adequate it<\/p>\n
requires interference ?.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Before adverting to the contentions       raised by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the finding<\/p>\n
given by the learned tribunal on issue No.1 . From the side<\/p>\n
of claimants,     to prove this issue AW\/3   Shyam Lal    and<\/p>\n
AW\/2 Natwar Lal have appeared and they have stated that<\/p>\n
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck<\/p>\n
by its driver . They have also stated that the car was going<\/p>\n
in   correct side and the truck came in wrong side and<\/p>\n
dashed the car.     It is also revealed from the record that<\/p>\n
police , after a thorough investigation, has filed     challan<\/p>\n
against truck driver and the truck driver or any witness has<\/p>\n
not appeared in rebuttal from the opposite side.
\n                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
     The learned tribunal , mainly     on the basis of Ex.4 ,<\/p>\n
site plan, prepared by the police during investigation ,<\/p>\n
though it has neither been proved by the opposite side by<\/p>\n
producing    the author of the site plan, nor investigating<\/p>\n
officer of that case was produced in that respect, concluded<\/p>\n
issue No.1   that, accident occurred   due to the rash   and<\/p>\n
negligent driving of both the drivers. But in my opinion,<\/p>\n
such type of conclusion , in absence of any statement, in<\/p>\n
rebuttal merely on the basis of Ex.4, could not be arrived.<\/p>\n
On the side of claimant, the eye witness as their presence<\/p>\n
are well established, as they have been sustained injuries<\/p>\n
clearly established that the car was driven in correct side<\/p>\n
and the truck which came in high speed dashed         the car<\/p>\n
and thereby caused the accident in which the driver of the<\/p>\n
car has lost his life and the person sitting in the car, also<\/p>\n
sustained injuries. Thus, the finding of learned tribunal on<\/p>\n
issue No.1, is not correct and is not sustainable and it is<\/p>\n
found that accident occurred,      solely due to rash and<\/p>\n
negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.1 Dhokal<\/p>\n
Ram, in which the appellant has sustained severe injuries.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the truck driver    respondent    No.1 was    sole<\/p>\n
responsible for causing the accident. The finding given by
\n                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
the   learned tribunal      in this   respect, is required to be<\/p>\n
modified to this extent that instead of holding both the<\/p>\n
drivers responsible for causing accident, it was the driver of<\/p>\n
the truck who        was sole responsible for causing          the<\/p>\n
accident.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The        learned tribunal,       while determining the<\/p>\n
compensation , looking to the injuries sustained by the<\/p>\n
appellant has assessed loss of income , that does not<\/p>\n
require any interference . But the learned tribunal has taken<\/p>\n
multiplier of 10 , that was not correctly applied as the age<\/p>\n
of the appellant at that time has been established to be 33-<\/p>\n
34 years . In that case, the appropriate multiplier of 17<\/p>\n
should have been used. Further, the learned tribunal has<\/p>\n
deducted    50% of the amount           on account of one time<\/p>\n
payment of compensation. That is also not tenable. Thus,<\/p>\n
taking the annual        loss of       income     Rs.28,800\/- as<\/p>\n
determined by the tribunal,           and multiplying    by 17 ,<\/p>\n
compensation      under this     head comes to Rs.4,89,600\/-<\/p>\n
(28,800×17). Further, the tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000\/-<\/p>\n
under    other     heads.     Considering       the   amount    of<\/p>\n
compensation awarded under other heads,               that is also
\n                                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
maintained.      Thus,     total        compensation   comes     to<\/p>\n
Rs.5,49,600\/-. The learned tribunal further has           deducted<\/p>\n
50%    of the sum,       out of the awarded compensation, on<\/p>\n
account of holding the responsibility          50%     of the truck<\/p>\n
driver, but as discussed above, the truck driver was found<\/p>\n
solely responsible for causing the accident.           Thus,   such<\/p>\n
deduction on this count,     is not sustainable. From the side<\/p>\n
of other angle     also, in case of joint        responsibility, the<\/p>\n
claimant was entitled to recover compensation from any<\/p>\n
one of them. In this way, the             deductions made by the<\/p>\n
learned tribunal, are liable to be quashed and set aside and<\/p>\n
claimant   was fully entitled to recover          compensation as<\/p>\n
determined and awarded above. The learned tribunal has<\/p>\n
awarded    interest at the rate of 15% per annum on             the<\/p>\n
sum of compensation but that is on higher side,                that<\/p>\n
requires modification and instead of that, interest @ 9%<\/p>\n
per annum is maintained, as the incident was of the year<\/p>\n
1993. The claimant appellant will be entitled to get the<\/p>\n
interest at this rate from the date of filing of claim petition,<\/p>\n
on due amount till realization.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      On the   basis of aforesaid discussion, the finding on
\n                                 17<\/span><\/p>\n
issue No.1, is corrected and it       is held that the accident<\/p>\n
occurred due to sole responsibility of the truck driver and<\/p>\n
on that basis, owner and insurer of the truck are held jointly<\/p>\n
and severally responsible for the payment of compensation.<\/p>\n
Further, the compensation determined by the learned<\/p>\n
tribunal is modified. Now the compensation is determined<\/p>\n
at Rs.5,49,600\/- and the responsibility of paying the same<\/p>\n
is held jointly and \/or severally on driver, owner and the<\/p>\n
insurer of the truck. Further, the claimant will be entitled to<\/p>\n
get interest    @ 9% per annum on due amount, from the<\/p>\n
date of filing of the claim   petition, till realization.<\/p>\n
     In the net result, the appeal is partly allowed. The<\/p>\n
judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is set<\/p>\n
aside and is modified to the extent that for causing<\/p>\n
accident,     driver of the truck,     respondent No.1 is held<\/p>\n
responsible     and     the    awarded         compensation   of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,49,600\/-<\/p>\n
and appellant claimant is held to be entitled to recover the<\/p>\n
amount of compensation Rs.5,49,600\/- along with interest<\/p>\n
@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim<\/p>\n
petition. If any amount is      paid under no fault liability or
\n                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
under the judgment and award, that will be adjustable. For<\/p>\n
the payment of entire compensation amount with interest<\/p>\n
Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the same in lower<\/p>\n
tribuna within two months from where the appellant will be<\/p>\n
entitled to receive the same. If the amount is not deposited<\/p>\n
within the period given, then     appellant will be   free to<\/p>\n
recover the same from the respondents.          Rest of the<\/p>\n
judgment is maintained. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                        (MANAK MOHTA), J.\n<\/p>\n
l.george\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT SHYAM LAL VS. DHOKAL RAM & ORS. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 424\/1997 against the judgment and award dated 24.01.1997 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nShyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-03T20:44:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-03T20:44:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2956,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-03T20:44:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-03T20:44:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-03T20:44:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008"},"wordCount":2956,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008","name":"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-03T20:44:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-dhokal-ram-ors-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shyam Lal vs Dhokal Ram & Ors on 14 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}