AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by
respondent No.1 was allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondent No.1 had failed to establish that the accident had occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of respondent
No.2 while driving the offending truck. Respondent No.1 has proved two disability certificates on record. As per Exhibit-71, respondent No.1 had
suffered disability to the tune of 12%, whereas, as per Exhibit-72, respondent No.1 had suffered disability to the tune of 61.62%. The doctor, who had
prepared Exhibit-72 has not been examined before the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand, has opposed the appeal.
Respondent No.1 had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered
by him in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 12.09.2002.
Respondent No.1 while appearing in the witness box as AW-1 deposed that on 12.09.2002, he was travelling on Motorcycle driven by Ramesh. In the
meantime, truck bearing No. RJ-02/G0919 came from the opposite direction. The truck was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
and by coming on their side of the road, the truck struck against their motorcycle. As a result, he suffered serious injuries. Driver of the offending
vehicle has not appeared in the witness box in rebuttal. Respondent No.1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the Insurance Company, but the
testimony of AW-1 with regard to manner of accident could not be shaken. A perusal of the site plan Exhibit-3 also reveals that it corroborates the
version of AW-1. Thus, in the present case, Tribunal had rightly held that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.2 while driving the offending truck.
The next question that requires consideration as to whether the Tribunal has correctly calculated the amount of compensation liable to be paid to the
respondent No.1. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, but from there, he was referred
to Alwar and thereafter to Jaipur. He remained under treatment in Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur. His one leg has been shortened. Respondent
No.1 produced on record medical bills and also disability certificates Exhibit-71 and Exhibit-72. A perusal of disability certificates Exhibit-71 reveals
that respondent No.1 had suffered temporary partial disability to the extent of 12% due to shortening of right lower limb. The said certificate was
issued on 23.04.2003. Exhibit-72 is another disability certificate available on record on the basis of examination of the respondent No.1 on 23.03.2004.
As per the same, respondent No.1 had suffered permanent physical disability to the tune of 61.62%.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has failed to justify as to why two disability certificates were obtained by the respondent No.1. As per Exhibit-
71, the disability certificate had been issued on account of shortening of right lower limb of respondent No.1. From Exhibit-72, it cannot be inferred
that after the issuance of Exhibit-71, respondent No.1 had again remained under treatment and his disability had increased with the passage of time. In
the facts of the present case, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to have examined the doctor, who had prepared Exhibit-72 in order to justify
the increase in percentage of disability suffered by respondent No.1 after the issuance of Exhibit-71. In these circumstances, no reliance can be
placed on Exhibit-72. In the facts of the present case, Tribunal fell in error in basing reliance on Exhibit-72 to assess the disability suffered by
respondent no.1.
Hence, in the present case, on the basis of Exhibit-71, disability of respondent No.1 was liable to be taken as 12%. Tribunal has taken the income of
the respondent No.1 as Rs.2,100/- per month and the same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 was aged
about 18 years at the time of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier to work-out the compensation vis-Ã -vis disability suffered by the respondent
No.1 would be 18. Thus, the compensation liable to be paid to the respondent No.1 vis-Ã -vis disability suffered by him would be Rs. 2,100/- X 12 X
18 X 12% = Rs. 54,432/-. Respondent No.1 would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards his future prospects
and the said amount comes to Rs.21,772/-. Respondent No.1 has been granted Rs. 20,000/- by the Tribunal towards medical bills and Rs.10,000/-
towards special diet and Rs. 8,700/towards transportation charges by the Tribunal and the said amounts have not been disputed during the course of
arguments. Respondent No.1 would be entitled to receive Rs.9,500/- as compensation with regard to his hospitalisation as he had remained admitted in
the hospital for about 19 days. Respondent No.1 would be further entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering as he has suffered
shortening of his right lower limb. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 54,432/- + Rs. 21,772/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- +
Rs. 9,500/- + Rs. 8,700/- = Rs. 1,74,404/-.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 03.02.2005 is modified to the extent that the respondent No.1 would be entitled to receive
compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,74,404/- instead of Rs. 2,97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall
remain the same. It is further ordered that the compensation amount shall be kept in Monthly Income Scheme of the Post Office initially for a period
of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the respondent No.1 on monthly basis. Secretary, District Legal Services
Authority, Alwar in the interest of the respondent No.1 shall keep the amount in the Monthly Income Scheme and shall open account of the
respondent No.1. He shall further apprise the respondent no.1 with regard to the fact that the amount shall be kept in Monthly Income Scheme in the
Indian Post Office for his benefit.