In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appellant's challenge to a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.2,500/-, holding that the appellant failed to prove permanent disability or link medical bills to the accident injuries.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
: J U D G M E N T :
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.856/2008
Purna Ram Vs.
Hardeen & Ors.
Date of Order
18th February, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. N.S. Khileri, for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Nimla, for respondent No.3.
BY THE COURT:
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.
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/-.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, inter alia, with the
2
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 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.
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.
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.
Based on the averments of the parties, four issues were framed. On behalf of the claimant, statements of Laxman Ram and Purna 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.
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
3
appellant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum.
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 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.
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.
I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.
The Tribunal has thoroughly dealt with the evidence led by the appellant. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the injuries were simple in nature. The appellant claimed that on account of the said accident he suffered injuries in the head and backbone, which has resulted in Paralysis to his eyes, whereas, there was no injury in the backbone. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the prescriptions exhibited do not relate to the treatment to the said injuries and in the prescriptions the diagnosis is that of some other disease and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim raised for the
4
treatment and medicines. Nothing has been pointed out by way of evidence to connect the said bills with the injuries in question.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
A.K.Chouhan/- 78
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the award of Rs.2,500/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is maintainable.
Whether medical bills disclosed paralysis and justified higher compensation.
Whether the Tribunal's finding of trivial injuries precludes allowance of claimed compensatory damages.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Purna Ram
Hardeen
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
