Partly allowed

Mangilal v. Ram Narain and Ors.

Rajasthan HC22 Feb 2013CMA/3432/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special leave civil appeal, the High Court modified the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to compensation based on the actual purchase price of Rs.71,000/- for the deceased mare rather than the Tribunal's lower award of Rs.45,000/-, and granted interest on the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.71,000/- towards the cost of the mare; interest granted at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of Rs.26,000/-.

Mangilal Vs Ram Narain and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: J U D G M E N T :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.3432/2011

¶5

Mangilal Vs.

¶6

Ram Narain & Ors.

¶7

Date of Judgment :: 22.02.2013

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

Mr. Mahesh Joshi, for the appellant. Mr. A.K. Dadhich, for the respondents.

¶11

BY THE COURT:

¶12

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 26.3.2003 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bali ('the Tribunal'), whereby for death of a mare, the appellant was awarded a compensation of Rs.46,000/-.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- with the averments that on 19.4.2000 at 5:30 am, the appellant's mare was struck by the vehicle belonging to the respondent No.2, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.1. The mare died on the spot and the rider suffered serious

¶14

¶15

injuries. It was claimed that at the time of accident, the mare was pregnant, of a good breed, quite healthy and was being utilised for marriage and other functions, by which the appellant used to earn about Rs.35,000/- per year.

¶16

No reply to the application was filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and only insurance company filed its reply.

¶17

The Tribunal framed four issues and after evidence was led by the claimant by examining himself and two other witnesses and exhibiting 10 documents, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and struck the mare resulting in the mare dying on the spot and the insurance company was liable for the payment of compensation.

¶18

On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that ordinarily a mare costs Rs.40,000/to Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- for the cost of mare and refused the compensation on account of income being generated for the said mare in view of the fact that the appellant gave out in his statement that he was spending almost equal amount earned from the mare on the person, who was looking after the said mare.

¶19

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal wrongly disbelieved the receipt Exhibit-1, which clearly indicated that the said mare was purchased by the appellant for Rs.71,000/- and, therefore, the award to the said extent deserves to be modified and the appellant should be awarded Rs.71,000/- towards cost of the mare.

¶20

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company contended that the document Exhibit-1 has rightly been dealt with by the tribunal and admittedly, the mare was purchased in the year 1997 and the same was involved in the accident in the year 2000 and as the age of the mare grows, her value goes down and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-.

¶22

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel at the Bar.

¶23

The claimant has produced Exhibit-1, which is a receipt dated 15.10.1997 executed by one Bakhtawar Singh indicating the breed, age of the mare and the cost which was paid to him for purchase of the mare. Not only this, the said Bakhtawar Singh was produced as AW-3, however, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that though the appellant himself has been examined as AW-1 and the seller Bakhtawar Singh as AW-3, but the independent witness Narayan Singh, who had written the document Exhibit-1, has not been examined and, therefore, disbelieved the fact that the cost of the mare was Rs.71,000/-. The Tribunal was also of the opinion that AW-3 Bakhtawar Singh was an interested witness. The Tribunal also disbelieved the breed of the mare and ultimately, observed “आमत�र पर घ�ड� क� क�मत 40-50 हज�र रपय� ह�त� ह�" and awarded Rs.45,000/- for the cost of mare, as noticed herein-before.

¶24

The said witnesses AW-1 and AW-3 were thoroughly crossexamined by the learned counsel for the insurance company and the testimony of both the witnesses could not be contradicted by such cross-examination. The receipt Exhibit-1 was duly proved

¶25

¶26

by both AW-1 appellant - the purchaser and AW-3 the seller and consequently, there was no reason for the learned trial court to discard the said receipt produced by the appellant. The fact that both purchaser and seller had entered the witness-box and had proved the transaction and the value was sufficient for the learned Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the receipt Exhibit1 was duly executed, thereafter, seeking independent witness was wholly unnecessary and the evidence of the said two witnesses could not have been discarded in absence of the scribe of the said receipt. The observations made by the learned Tribunal as quoted herein-before that 'normally the cost of a mare is Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-' is employing personal opinion without indicating any background and the same cannot be appreciated.

¶27

In view of the above discussion, the appellant has clearly established that the mare was purchased by him for Rs.71,000/-.

¶28

So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company about loss in value of the animal over a period of time is concerned, it would be seen that the mare was only 3½ years of age at the time it was purchased and in fact, at the time of death the value of the said animal would have grown and it would not have diminished for any reason, therefore, the said argument cannot be sustained.

¶29

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the finding on issues No.2 and 4 recorded by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that in place of Rs.45,000/-, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.71,000/-

¶30

¶31

towards the cost of the mare, who died on account of the accident. The appellant would also be entitled to interest @ 7½% per annum from the date of filing of the application on the enhanced amount of Rs.26,000/- i.e. 30.5.2000. The rest of the award does not require any interference. The enhanced compensation with interest be paid within a period of three months. No costs.

¶32

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶33

rm/-

Mangilal v. Ram Narain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal v. Ram Narain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mst. Kamla Vs Mst. Mangi Bai and Ors.

Moti Lal Vs Raju Ram and Ors.

Smt. Ganga Vs Hukma Ram and Ors.

Kaidar Nath and Ors. Vs Amar Nath and Ors.

U.O.I. Vs U.I.T.Sriganganagar

U.O.I. Vs U.I.T.Udaipur