Partly allowed

Baluram v. R S R T C

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2015CMA/242/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim where the appellant suffered leg amputation. Finding the earlier award of Rs.70,000 inadequate for a 100% loss of earning capacity and permanent disability, the Court increased the amount to Rs.4,35,600 citing damages for future income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and cart damage.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded was enhanced from Rs.70,000 to Rs.4,35,600 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition before the Tribunal.

Baluram Vs R S R T C — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.242/2005 Baluram & Others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.

¶4

Date of order

¶5

22.8.2015

¶6

Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Ranka

¶7

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, for appellants None present for the respondents

¶8

By the Court

¶9

The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 6.9.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (Jaipur), in MAC No.154/2004.

¶10

Brief facts noticed are that on 26.9.1984, appellant-Baluram and others went to Shahpura from their village Arniya to purchase cement-pipes and while they were returning to their village Arniya with the cement-pipes loaded in camel-carts, about one furlong ahead of village Manoharpur a bus of the respondent-Corporation, bearing no.RRB 2486 coming from behind in a high speed hit the camel-cart which was behind their camel-cart, consequent to which their camel-cart was also severely hit by it, and the impact of the accident was so heavy that the appellant-Baluram received grievous injuries. FIR bearing no.177/1984 was lodged in Police Station Shahpura. Claim was filed and the Tribunal, after taking note of all the facts and material on record, allowed a compensation of Rs.70,000/- to Baluram, which has been assailed before this court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is a case where

¶12

¶13

there was gross negligence of the bus which was being driven in a high speed, on account of which the appellant-Baluram got injured and both his legs were got damaged and his right leg was amputated during the course of treatment. The appellant-Baluram remained hospitalised for a number of days, and several operations had to be conducted. A medical certificate was also issued by a team of Medical Board of the S.M.S. Hospital, clearly certifying that right leg of the appellant has been amputated and there has been permanent physical disability of 50%. He contended that the award of the Tribunal is wholly perverse as no basis has been given for assessing the compensation at Rs.70,000/- only. He further contended that by amputation of leg of the appellant he has totally become disabled at a young age of 35 years and will be wholly dependent and will need someone's help for his day to day work, what to talk of any employment or work to be done by him. He contended that amount of Rs. two lac has been incurred for medical treatment and other expenses, and heavy expenditure has been incurred for coming to the S.M.S. Hospital from his village, and contended that the compensation is required to be enhanced suitably. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. AIR 2014 SC 1052, M.D. Jacob v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another AIR 2014 SC 988, and Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways AIR 2014 SC 995. 4. None appeared on behalf of the Corporation despite name of the counsel having been shown in the cause list. The matter was last listed on 20.8.2015 on that day also none appeared on behalf of the respondents,

¶14

¶15

while the name of counsel for the respondents was shown in the cause list. Since it is an old appeal and today also none appeared, therefore, the matter is being decided on the basis of the arguments advanced by the counsel for appellant and the material available on record.

¶16

Admittedly, the accident has taken place on 26.9.1984 and an FIR was also lodged, and during the course of investigation even the driver Birju Singh appeared and admitted that he was driving the bus no.RRB 2486 and on seeing the camel-carts he blew horn number of times due to which the camels became nervous/distracted, and came on the middle of the road due to which he could not control the bus, and hit the camel-cart which was last in the row, although he claimed that neither the bus was on a high speed, nor he was driving in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, once there is an admission by the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has correctly reached to the conclusion that the bus of the Corporation was involved in the accident.

¶17

It is a case of amputation of leg of the injured-appellant, and the certificate issued by the Medical Board also confirms the fact, and permanent disablement has been shown to be upto 50%, but his income earning capacity will be reduced by 100% being disabled with one leg. In my view the amount allowed by the Tribunal is not fair and reasonable at all, and it requires to be enhanced. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that compensation is to be allowed in a just and proper manner, which in my view, having regard to the medical certificate issued by a Board of three doctors, where there is an amputation of leg, certainly the total

¶18

¶19

amount of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, is on a lower side. In my view, once the Tribunal has adopted income as the basis to compute compensation, certainly it should have been carried to the logical end on the basis of the income assessed.

¶20

It can be inferred that with the amputation of one of the legs the appellant has become certainly disabled to the extent that he will have to be dependant on someone for leading his day to day life even, and has a long life ahead being 35 years of age, and he may not be in a position to do any work of his choice as well. Taking into consideration the above fact, in my view the amount allowed by the Tribunal needs be computed suitably.

¶21

After taking note of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant the computation is made as hereunder :

¶22

(1) Income at the rate of Rs.60/- day, as taken by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.1800/per month, on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier is required to be taken at 16 i.e. 1800 which makes it – 1800x12x16= 3,45,600/-, thus this would be allowed as loss of future income.

¶23

(2) The amount allowed on medical treatment, in my view, in a case where there is an amputation of leg, at least should have been Rs.50,000/-, i.e. 3,45,600+50,000 = 3,95,600/-.

¶24

(3) Admittedly, on account of the amputation, the appellant Baluram has suffered lot of pain and suffering, which cannot be by and large quantified

¶25

¶26

of a person in money terms who has faced such a pain and suffering, and in my view it should be appropriate to allow Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, taking into consideration that the incident is of the year 1984, i.e. 3,95,600+30,000 = 4,25,600/-.

¶27

(4) The amount of total damage of the camel-cart is also required to be allowed at Rs.10,000/-, as allowed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the claim is enhanced from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.4,35,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing claim petition before Tribunal.

¶28

Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, let a copy of this order be sent to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation for compliance and let the Tribunal disburse the above amount with interest by account payee bank draft. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed as aforesaid.

(J.K. Ranka) J.

100

[All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya

¶33

Baluram v. R S R T C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baluram v. R S R T C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kishan@Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shishram Vs State

Ramavtar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pitamber Vs Leela Devi and Ors.

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Phool Chand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp