Ravi Kanta Jain vs Rohtas Kumar

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 1065, 1066 and 1135 of 1989 as well as CrossObjection NO. 109CII of 1989 filed in F.A.O. No. 1065 of 1989 which involve common questions of fact and law and had arisen out of common award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar dated 16.5.1989.

F.A.O. No. 1065 of 1989 is filed by Ravi Kanta Jain and others for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Munisubrat Dass Jain in a road accident on 14.4.1986. F.A.O. No. 1066 of 1989 is also filed by Ravi Kanta Jain for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident in which her husband had died. F.A.O. No. 1135 of 1989 is filed by the Insurance Company for setting aside the award. Cross Objections No. 109CII of 1989 in F.A.O. No. 1065 of 1989 have been filed by respondent No. 2 praying for the reduction of the amount of compensation by setting aside the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Hissar vide its award dated 16.5.1989 had disposed of two Claims Petitions No. 33 of 1986 titled Ravi Kanta v. Rohtas Kumar and others and 34 of 1986 Ravi Kanta and others v. Rohtas Kumar and others.

The case of the claimants as set up in the claim petition was that on 14.4.1986, Manisubrat Dass Jain was driving scooter bearing registration No. HRI8550. His wife Smt. Ravi Kanta was sitting on pillion seat. They were proceeding from Hisar City towards Delhi Road, Hisar. When their scooter reached near United Commercial Bank, a truck bearing registration No. HRT7734 came from behind and hit the scooter, as a result of which Manisubrat Das Jain fell towards right side of the scooter while Mrs. Ravi Kanta Jain fell on the left side. Manisubrat Dass Jain died on the spot and Smt. Ravi Kanta Jain received injuries on the left forearm and got her ribs fractured. Dr. N.M. Sharma conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Manisubrat Dass Jain. He has stated that the age of deceased was 60 years. The ocular version has been given by Parmod Jain, PW13, Subhash PW16 and Smt. Ravi Kanta Jain, injured.

It was further the case of claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 40,000/ per annum. He was managing various properties of his own as well as of other claimants. It was also urged that the deceased was a leading personality of the town. Certain documents Ex.P53 to P81 were also produced. The deceased was contributing a sum of Rs. 3,000/ out of his income to run the household and after his death, Smt. Ravi Kanta Jain had to employ servants for looking after the plantation of grapes and for other agricultural purposes. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ as compensation for the death of Manisubrat Dass Jain. Smt. Ravi Kanta Jain had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ on account of injuries sustained by her.

It was also the case of claimants that the death of deceased and injuries to Ravi Kanta Jain were caused by the rash and negligent driving of driver of truck, Mr. Rohtas Kumar who did not blow any horn and struck against the scooterist from behind.

The claim applications were resisted by the respondents. The Tribunal, after recording evidence and hearing arguments returned a finding that Manisubrat deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of driver of truck No. HRT7734. The Tribunal assessed the income of Manisubrat Dass Jain at Rs. 3,000/ per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/ per month. The Tribunal further held that the deceased must have been spending Rs. 1,000/ per month on his own person and assessed the dependency of the claimants on the deceased at Rs. 2,000/ per month i.e. Rs. 24,000/. While applying a multiplier of ''10'', he assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,40,000/. Smt. Ravi Kanta Jain was awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/ as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident.

In F.A.O. No. 1066 of 1989, the case of claimants is that she has suffered multiple injuries i.e. her ribs were fractured, her skin on the left forearm was grafted and she had to undergo surgery and is unable to do the work independently. She had also to engage an employee. The Tribunal while awarding compensation had not taken into consideration these facts and the compensation awarded to her does not commensurate with the injuries sustained by her.

In F.A.O. No. 1065 of 1989, the enhancement of compensation is sought on the ground that the income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants on the deceased have not been properly worked out.

In F.A.O. No. 1135 of 1989, Mr. O.P. Goyal has argued that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck. Rather, it was caused due to the fault of Manisubrat Dass Jain who was driving the scooter and as such the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

In the CrossObjections, the plea is that instead of multiplier of ''10'', multiplier of ''5'' should have been applied.

It will be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of appeal, Smt. Ravi Kanta Jain had died and her legal heirs were brought on the record by the Court order.

The counsel for the parties were heard at length and the Court had perused the trial Court file and the photographs taken at the spot.

In F.A.O. No. 1065 of 1989, the claimants have averred that the income of the deceased was about Rs. 40,000/ per annum. The Tribunal had assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/. The difference is only of Rs. 4,000/. As such this Court is of the considered view that the income of the deceased has been properly worked out and the dependency of the claimants on the deceased has been properly assessed. Consequently, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, F.A.O. No. 1065 of 1989 is dismissed.

In F.A.O. No. 1135 of 1989, filed by the Insurance Company, a plea has been taken that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist. This Court, time and again, has held that such pleas cannot be raised by the Insurance Company. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this plea and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is also dismissed with no costs.

The deceased was 60 years old and was expected to live for some more years. It has come in the evidence that he was looking after the plantation of grapes and other agricultural work. Had he not died in the accident, he would have supervised the work and as such multiplier of ''10'' has been rightly applied. Crossobjections are dismissed.

In the case of Ravi Kanta Jain, claimant, it has come in the evidence of Dr. Surender Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hisar that the injuries could have been caused to the injured in a road accident. Dr. Pankaj Mutneja, Medical Officer Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, PW9, stated that on 22.4.1986, Smt. Ravi Kanta Jain, widow of late Manisubrat Jain was admitted in the Hospital and she remained in the hospital till 22.5.1986. Dr. Keshwani had operated her and he had assisted him. He had done skin grafting on left forearm. She had injury measuring 6 cm x 12 cm. on the medical side of left forearm. It had unhealthy flooring. She had also stitched wound on the posterior lateral side of forearm. She had come with slips on which it was mentioned that she had rib fracture. Dr. Mutneja also stated that at the time when Smt. Ravi Kanta Jain was brought to Dr. Keshwani, her skin and subcutaneous tissues were lost. There was thickening to the extent of .5 cm. which was due to scar and was of permanent nature.

Dr. M.L. Kochhar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hisar has stated that he had medically examined Ravi Kanta Jain and had found a scar on her left forearm, which was of permanent nature. In addition to this, there was hyperanaesthetic patch in the same area which could remain for months to years. The disability will not increase but can cause hindrance in her day to day routine work. The pain and swelling may continue.

Keeping in view the nature of injuries, pain and sufferings, agony, which the claimant must have undergone and permanent disability, I am of the considered view that Ravi Kanta Jain claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/ in lumpsum which would be just and fair compensation. Accordingly, Ravi Kanta Jain claimant is held entitled to Rs. 50,000/ as compensation out of which compensation already warded awarded to her is to be adjusted.

The claimant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till actual recovery.

F.A.O. No. 1066 of 1989 is partly allowed in the manner indicated above, FAO Nos. 1065 and 1135 of 1989 and the Cross Objections are dismissed.