STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the appeal and the cross -objections against the award dated December' 17, 1985, passed by Mr. Jagat Singh, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota, are as under: On the morning of 7th April, 1982, at about 9.30 a.m., respondent Kishan Lal was going on scooter at Gumanpura Road near Poolia at Kota. At that time jeep, bearing No. RRR 8750, which was owned by the appellant No. 1, State of Rajasthan and was being driven by Vishnu Dutt, driver, came from the opposite direction and there was an accident between the scooter and the jeep. Respondent fell down from the scooter. In the accident his left foot was fractured and he also received some abrasion injuries on the foot. He became unconscious and was removed to the hospital by AW 2, R.R Kapur. In the hospital Dr. Y.K. Sharma examined the respondent. The respondent remained admitted in the hospital for about 8 days and thereafter he took rest at his residence. He filed a petition claiming a sum of Rs. 42,000/ -. This included the claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the respondent, the mental agony suffered by him, the amount of expenses towards scooter repairs, treatment and nourishment and the compensation for loss of business for a period of two months. He alleged that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver Vishnu Dutt. The claim was contested by the State. Since Vishnu Dutt (driver) had died, no written statement could be filed on his behalf. In the written statement filed by the State, it was denied that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving by Vishnu Dutt and it was pleaded that the respondent was driving his scooter at a fast speed and negligently and as such the accident took place. The claim was also resisted on the ground that it was excessive. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following four issues: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial court found that the cause of accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver and not because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the respondent. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were thus decided in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. The learned trial court further found that the claimant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3,072.85 towards the charges for repair of scooter and that he was confined to bed and as such had suffered losses in his business, besides having spent the amount for his medicines and fruits etc. He was also held entitled to receive compensation for mental agony. The bills for the actual amount spent by the respondent on medicines and fruits were not produced in the learned trial court which after considering the period of confinement came to the conclusion that the respondent must have spent Rs. 1,000/ - on this account. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion that the respondent can be said to have suffered a loss of Rs. 4,000/ - on account of his inability to attend the business for the abovesaid period of two months. The learned trial court held that the respondent was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - from the appellant by way of pain and mental agony because of the fact that he suffered fracture and had also become incapable for the future. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court granted an award in the sum of Rs. 23,072.85 with costs assessed at Rs. 500/ - in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed appeal and the respondent has filed the cross -objections claiming enhancement of the amount of award.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence produced by them before the learned trial court and in this regard the certified copies of the statements etc. were produced by the learned counsel for the respondent and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant.