Girraj vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others

K.C. Sharma, J.—Through this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1986, the appellants seek to modify the award dated 28.2.1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bayana, whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000 to the injured.

On 21.3.1988, a bus No. RNP-1417 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation dashed against Jonga GAC 7392 in which injured was travelling, as a result of which the injured suffered fractures of tibia and fibula bone. The learned Tribunal having found that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of bus, awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000 to the injured in the following manner:

Loss of income Rs. 5,000.00 For treatment Rs. 2,000.00 Foe special diet Rs. 1,000.00 For expenditure on medicine Rs. 2,000.00 For mental agony Rs.1,000.00

It appears that during pendency of appeal, the appellant filed an application on 18.5.2005 for consideration of subsequent events. Along with the application, he has also filed a discharge certificate issued by Dr. A.K. Mathur of SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur. It was stated in the application that appellant sustained grievous injuries on both the legs in the road accident and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. It was further submitted that right from the day the accident took place and even after the award was passed, the appellant remained under treatment and ultimately his right leg was imputed in 2002 i.e., after 8 years of the accident.

In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for both the parties jointly submitted that the question whether the leg of the appellant was amputed as a consequence of injuries sustained in road accident in 1988 is a disputed question of fact and if the answer is in affirmative then again the quantum of compensation has to be decided by the Tribunal. In the view of the matter, both the Counsel agreed that the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal to decide both the issues.

I agree with the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties that the question whether the leg of the appellant amputed in 2002 was due to injuries having been sustained by him in the road accident of 1988. If it is found that amputation of leg of the appellant was the result of injuries sustained in the road accident in 1988 then the question as to the quantum of compensation would again arise and that would be decided by the Tribunal.

For the reasons, therefore, I remand this case to the Tribunal for decision on the following two questions:

(1) Whether amputation of right leg of the appellant in 2002 was the result of accident which took place on 21.3.1988?

(2) If the answer is in affirmative, what would the amount of compensation to be awarded to the injured appellant?

Both the parties would be free to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. The Tribunal is directed to decide the aforesaid two questions within 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The Registry is directed to send the record and a copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith.

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.