KAN SINGH Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Award and Decree dated 22.4.88 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000/ - as compensation to claimant Jagdish Singh.

(2.) CLAIMANT Jagdish Singh, on 7.1.83, filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 31,039/ -. The case of the claimant as set -out in the claim petition, was that on 10.7.82, at about 8.00 a.m. he was going to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for his treatment. He was going on his scooter No. RSQ 1489 from Mandore side to Paota side. When he reached near the house of Shri Khet Singh Rathore, a truck No. RJQ 3939 came from behind hit the claimant. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Ranjeet Singh Sankhla. On account of this accident the claimant received injuries on both the legs, left hand, nose, eye and the head. His scooter was, also, damaged. This accident was witnessed by Banshi Lal Bhati and Hari Singh. One taxi, also, came there, in which he was taken to the hospital. The report of the accident was lodged at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur. On the date of the accident the claimant was working as Junior Lecturer in Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School, Jodhpur and was getting Rs. 1500/ - per month as salary. He remained in the hospital for 31/2 months on account of the fracture on both the legs and was discharged on 23.10.82. Thereafter he had to go to the hospital in Physio -Theraphy Unit for exercise as both the legs of the claimant were not fit. The claimant, therefore, claimed the compensation of Rs. 31,039/ -. Rs. 20,000/ - were claimed on account of physical pain and mental agony, Rs. 4,000/ - were claimed for food and nourishing, Rs. 520/ - were claimed for employing the servant, Rs. 1,500/ - were claimed towards the expenses incurred on the relatives and visitors who came to him for asking his well -being, Rs. 3,014/ - were claimed as the taxi -charges for going to and coming from the hospital, Rs. 500/ - were claimed towards the repair -charges of the scooter and Rs. 1,500/ - were claimed towards medical expenses.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the accident was the result of the negligence on the part of the claimant himself who came from the fort side and his scooter was hit by the road -divider and he fell down on the road. The truck never hit the scooter or the claimant. It was not on account of the rash or negligence on the part of the truck driver Ranjeet Singh that the accident took place and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in holding the driver of the truck responsible for the accident. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive and the claimant failed to prove the claim. Learned Counsel for the respondent claimant, on the other hand, has supported the award and decree passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal.