High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 02 RAJ CK 0052

Mahipal Singh S/o Madan Singh vs Girdhar Singh Dahiya S/o Jagat Singh Dahiya

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 10 February 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arun Bhansali
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
1583 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

60 paragraphs · 566 words
1.

This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated

11.07.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road,

District Sirohi (''the Tribunal''), whereby, the appellant has been

awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only as compensation for the

injuries suffered by him.

2.

The application was filed with the averments that the

claimant was travelling in the Jeep when the same collided with

the insured vehicle resulting in injuries to him, whereby, he

suffered fracture involving right frontal bone. It was claimed that

the appellant-claimant had to undergo treatment for a long time

that he has suffered permanent disablement.

3.

Based on the averments, compensation to the tune of

Rs. 4,30,000/- was claimed.

4.

The application was opposed by the non-claimants.

On behalf of the claimants, the appellant himself was

examined and he exhibited certain documents.

5.

The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion

that though the appellant had suffered injury, however, as the

medical bills in original were not produced, the same indicated

that the amount of medical expenses has been recovered from

elsewhere and based on that rejected the application by awarding

a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards pain and suffering.

6.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the

Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the

amount of medical expenses was recovered from somewhere else

though there was no such evidence available on record. Further

submissions were made that though the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the medical expenses were recovered, the

compensation under other heads like for the fracture suffered by

him and other medical related expenses like diet etc. were not

awarded and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set

aside/modified.

7.

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the award

impugned. It was submitted that the Tribunal was justified in not

awarding any amount towards the medical expenses and that the

appellant has failed to make out any case of permanent

disablement so as to claim the amount of compensation.

8.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9.

A bare perusal of the memo of appeal filed by the appellant

indicates that despite a specific finding by the Tribunal regarding

the appellant having recovered the medical expenses from

somewhere else, based on non-production of original documents,

neither the said finding has been questioned as perverse nor any

documents have been produced to counter the said finding of the

Tribunal. In view thereof, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard

cannot be questioned.

10.

So far as the non-award of amount towards the fracture and

pain & suffering etc. suffered by the appellant is concerned,

though there is no medical report available on record except for a

C.T. Scan, wherein, there is a reference of fracture on right frontal

bone, based on the said injury indicated and the fact that the

appellant remained hospitalized for two days, a further lump sum

amount of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the appellant.

11.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award

impugned is modified to the extent that the appellant would be

entitled to further compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-

alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application

i.e. 14.08.2008. The amount be paid to the appellant in his

saving bank account.