GHEWAR RAM Vs. HARDAYAL SINGH CHAMPAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide impugned judgment and award dated 08.11.2013 passed in Claim Case No. 615/2010, whereby a sum of compensation to the tune of Rs.47,130/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.04.2010 at about 7:00 pm in the evening, the appellant after completing his work was going to his house on his motor cycle. When he reached near Sanvrij Circle, one Bolero Jeep No.RJ 21-UA-1921 coming from Phalodi side, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle of the appellant, as a result of which the appellant sustained simple and grievous injuries. In the claim petition it was stated that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle accident took place. FIR of the said accident was registered at Police Station Phalodi, District Jodhpur. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a joint reply stating that the accident was took-place due to the negligence of the appellant himself. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed separate reply denying the contents of the claim petition and stating that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with it from 102010 to 11.02011. The respondent-Insurance Company took a specific objection in its reply that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the motor cycle rider and at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed four issues including relief. The appellant-claimant got examined himself and exhibited 46 documents. In rebuttal, the respondents have not adduced any evidence. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide its judgment and award dated 08.11.2013 awarded a compensation of Rs.47,1328/- in favour of the claimant/appellant. Hence, this misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and needs to be enhanced as claimed in the claim petition. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has failed to read and consider the evidence in its right, legal perspective. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the discharge ticket (Ex-42) the appellant remained hospitalized in Manidhari Hospital, Jodhpur from 20.04.2010 to 24.04.2010. The appellant undergone surgical operation of left leg and steel rod was fitted in his left leg. The appellant has spent about Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/- in his treatment. But the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.500/- per day only for hospitalization and has not awarded any compensation towards the doctor fee and operation charges. Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in law and facts as well while quantifying the quantum of compensation in awarding such a meager amount of award in favour of claimant/appellant. At the time of accident, the appellant was 30 years of age and was working as skilled mechanic of building construction and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the said accident the appellant remained out of job for more than six months and still not in a position to work properly. But the learned Tribunal in his judgment even did not discuss the loss of income and future prospects and has not awarded a single penny under this head. Hence, the impugned judgment and awards deserves to be modified and enhanced.