Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Himmat Singh And Ors

At the request made by the counsel for the parties, service upon unserved respondent No.2-driver of RSRTC is dispense with. Service is complete. The matter is heard for final disposal at the admission stage.

The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-non-claimant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur against the award/judgment dated 23.09.2011 whereby the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal' for short) i awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,09,772/- in favour of the claimant n MACT Case No. 490/2010.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 30.10.2009 the claimant(Respondent No.1) was travelling by car No.RJ-06CA/1353 from Bhilwara to Jaipur. The car was being driven by its driver Narendra Singh on National Highway No.79. At about 10 AM when they reached near Bherunji Turn, Kishangarh by pass, an R.S.R.T.C. Bus No.RJ-14-1P/3283 driven by its driver respondwent No.2 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and hit the car. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained many severe and simple injuries on face, left hand and leg.

Learned Judge, MACT after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case while computing the compensation awarded a sum of Rs.2,09,772/- to the claimant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.

Learned counsel for the appellant-non-claimant submits that accident took place between the two vehicles coming from the opposite side and car driver should have been rendered equally responsible for this accident and should have fastened with equal liability so far as compensation is concerned. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the rate of interest should have been awarded from the date of passing the award and not from the date of filing the claim petition. He further submits that the Insurance Company of the car has not been made party to the claim petition. It is further argued that as far as the quantum of award is concerned, the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.2,09,772/- for loss of income due to disability caused to the claimant as the income of the claimant was not proved. Thus the claim petition filed by the claimant deseves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the partis and carefully gone through the material placed before me and impugned judgment and award.

It is not in dispute that the respondent claimant is a practizing Advocate who has sustained 15% permanent disability with injuries mainly on his face as his jaw and teeth broken due to said accident. Looking to the nature of profession in which the claimant - injured was engaged practicing law and advocacy, whose professional income normally rises with experience and lapse of period. The experienced advocates earn much better in their later life of profession than in earlier years. It is true that a practicising advocate does not become totally non-functional or 100% crippled, but due to the disability suffered on the face as the jaw and teeth was broken, the normal efficiency, personality and arguing capacity are certainly adversely affected as the claimant is engaged in a public dealing profession. This Court is of the opinion that average monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- taken by the learned Tribunal in computing the compensation in no way can be said to be on the higher side.

So far as the negligence on the part of claimant is concerned, the claimant was travelling in the car at the time of accident, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for contributing in any manner for rash and negligent driving.

In my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs.2,09,772/- to the claimant for the injuries suffered by the claimant. Therefore, the instant misc. appeal is hereby dismissed.