Dismissed

Laxman @ Lichhman Ram v. Hardeen and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2013CMA/854/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal by an injured claimant against a minor compensation award of Rs.2,500 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court rejected the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's view that no evidence connected the substantial medical bills to the accident injuries.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed against the judgment and award of the Tribunal was dismissed with no costs.

Laxman @ Lichhman Ram Vs Hardeen and Ors. — Medical Negligence | 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.854/2008

¶5

Laxman @ Lichhman Ram

Vs.

Hardeen & Ors.

Date of Order

18^th February, 2013

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Mr. N.S. Khileri, for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Nimla, for respondent No.3.

¶13

BY THE COURT:

¶14

In this appeal notices for final disposal were ordered to be issued on 03.07.2008. Despite service, respondent No.2 owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared while service on respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle has been dispensed with.

¶15

This appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') against the judgment and award dated 26.03.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the appellant was awarded compensation of Rs.2,500/-.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, inter alia, with the averments that on 23.12.2005 he was travelling in a Jeep on way to his village Degana when a Truck bearing registration number RJ27-G-7435, which was being driven rashly and

¶17

¶18

negligently by respondent No.1 collided with the Jeep, which resulted in serious injuries to the appellant. The appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.18,05,500/-. It is claimed that on account of accident the claimant who was earning Rs.7,000/- per month has become permanently disabled and, therefore, the compensation as stated above was claimed.

¶19

The claim petition was replied by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, wherein, the averments made in the claim petition were denied and disputed and it was further stated that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited.

¶20

On behalf of the Insurance Company the averments made in the claim petition were denied and it was also submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable.

¶21

Based on the averments of the parties, four issues were framed. On behalf of the claimant, statements of Laxman Ram and Puna Ram were recorded and as many as 90 documents were got exhibited. On behalf of the respondents statement of NAW-Vishnu Kumar Parikh was recorded.

¶22

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that truck was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, the objections raised by the Insurance Company are without any basis and Insurance Company was liable to make payment of the compensation. Ultimately, it awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the appellant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum.

¶23

It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded quite a meager amount as compared to the amount claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal has not

¶24

¶25

taken into consideration the large number of medical bills which were produced and marked as exhibits during the course of evidence and none of the amount relating to the said bills have been awarded to the appellant and, as such, the judgment and award deserves to be modified and the appellant be awarded just compensation.

¶26

On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The appellant has failed to lead any evidence regarding his medical condition of permanent disability and, therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation.

¶27

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.

¶28

The Tribunal has thoroughly dealt with the evidence led by the appellant. The Tribunal was of the opinion that when accident occurred on 23.12.2005 and the bills relating to medicines have been produced for the period 28.12.2005 to 04.03.2006 and it is apparent from the injury report that the appellant suffered only two simple injuries and no medical evidence has been produced to show that the injuries were of such a nature which required such a long treatment. Ultimately, the Tribunal reached a conclusion that the bills produced were apparently not relating to the treatment in connection with the injuries suffered by the appellant due to accident. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for coming to a conclusion that the bills produced by the appellant did not relate to the injuries suffered by way of the accident relating to which the claim petition was filed and, therefore, it was justified in refusing to award the said

¶29

¶30

amount by way of compensation. Nothing has been pointed out by way of evidence to connect the said bills with the injuries in question.

¶31

In view of the above discussion, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶32

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶33

A.K.Chouhan/- 79

Laxman @ Lichhman Ram v. Hardeen and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman @ Lichhman Ram v. Hardeen 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

Bhogaji Vs Sukhlal and Ors.

Birdha Ram Vs Manohar Lal

Lal Singh Vs Magan Singh

Baljeet Singh Vs Nirmal Singh

Smt.Sukhi Devi and Ors. Vs Jaswant Singh and Ors.

Purna Ram Vs Hardeen Ram and Ors.