HANUMANSAHAY Vs. KISHANLAL AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 04/12/2006 passed by the MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur District, Jaipur in claim case No.208/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants has been partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.3,45,000/-.

(2.) On the basis of the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and as per the impugned order, the brief facts are that the claimant-appellant on 10/03/2005, while going with his son on his motorcycle from Bassi to Achalpura at about 5.30 pm in the evening, when they reached gram Manoharpura near Koliyon Ki Dhani, at that time, the respondent NO.1, who was also coming on a motorcycle bearing No.RJ-14-48M-4304, while driving his motorcycle in a fast speed and coming from wrong side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with the vehicle of the claimant-appellant on account of which the claimant-appellant sustained severe and grievous injuries due to which his right leg had to be amputated during the course of treatment and that apart he also suffered fractures in the body and was not in a position to move out for more than four months. The claimant-appellant was employed in Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and at that time, he was on the verge of retirement on account of having attained the age of superannuation. The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material on record, including the FIR lodged as also the challan submitted later on, held that the incident occurred on account of the offending vehicle, bearing No. RJ-14-48M-4304, having been driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and on account of the said accident, the claimant-appellant had to face severe problem and his right leg had to be amputated. The Tribunal, after considering the other evidence on record including the medical reports and severe disability caused to the claimant-appellant, which was to the extent of 70%, allowed a claim of Rs.3,45,000/- in favour of the claimant-appellant.

(3.) Counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the amount allowed on various heads needs to be appropriately enhanced in as much as no criteria has been adopted of adopting income to the extent of Rs.1,200/- per month only when otherwise also no basis has been spelt out as to how an amount of Rs.1,200/- per month ( i.e. Rs.40 per day) has been held to be the income of the claimant-appellant . He further contended that the amount allowed on account of mental peace, agony, sufferings etc. at Rs.40,000/- is too small as the claimant-appellant would have to bear this loss for all times to come and would always be dependent on someone else for even small work. He further contended that the amount allowed on account of other heads namely; attendant, nutrition & diets etc. etc. is also too meager and deserves to be enhanced suitably. He relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd, 2012 RAR(SC) 19 .