Appeal by a claimant against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal following a road accident. The High Court held that the Tribunal had dealt with every aspect correctly and dismissed the appeal, confirming the award.
Appeal dismissed; impugned award of compensation by the Tribunal is confirmed.
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 JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
J U D G M E N T
S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2861/2015
Pappu @ Shesh Narayan Sharma Son of Shri Kalyan Sahai Sharma, aged 37 years, by cast Brahmin, Resident of Village Chawand Ka Mand, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
Claimant-/appellant
versus 1.Phool Chand Son of Shri Banshidhar, by caste Jat, Resident of Gathwara, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
(Driver of Vehicle Truck No.RJ-14-G-9761) 2.Ghanshyam Son of Shri Narayan, by caste Yadav, Resident of Gathwara, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
(Owner of Vehicle Truck No. RJ-14-G-9761) 3.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Through Regional Manager Sahara Chamber Tonk road Jaipur (insurer company Truck no, RJ 14 G 9761)
...Non-Claimant-Appellant DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23/09/2015
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Kamal Gupta, for appellant. Mr.Tripurari Sharma , for respondents.
The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the Judge, MACT.
Brief facts of the case are that With regard to the aforesaid accident, a claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant/s
2
claiming compensation as mentioned therein.
Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Reply to the claim petition was filed and the learned Tribunal framed the issues. After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment & award.
Against the impugned judgment and award, the appellant preferred the instant appeal for the relief as prayed for in it.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate each and every aspect of the matter as also the evidence available on record. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts of the case. Hence impugned award deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant and requested for setting aside the award.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on the issue No.4, which is reproduced as under:-
bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ i{k ij Fkk] ftlesa mls ;g rF; izekf.kr djuk gS fd vk;k nkosnkj vius nkos@nkok esa vafdr iz'uxr jkf'k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;lEer jkf'k ik ldrk gS] gkW rks nkosnkj fdruh&fdruh jkf'k fdl&fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls ik ldrk gS\
izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dguk gS fd mDr nq?kZVuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZ ds 'kjhj ij xaHkhj pksVsa vkbZ vkSj og LFkkbZ :i ls fodykax gks x;k gS vkSj mlds 'kkjhfjd {kerk
3
esa deh vkbZ gSA mudk dguk gS fd bl laca/k esa mUgksaus vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa crk, x, pksV izfrosnu] ,Dl js fjiksVZ rFkk gkWfLiVy esa HkrhZ jgus ds izys[k fpfdRlk ds fpfdRlh; fcy rFkk LFkkbZ v;ksX;rk izek.k i= vkfn izLrqr fd, gSa ftlls iw.kZ :i ls nq?kZVuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i gqbZ {kfr izekf.kr gksrh gSA pwafd vkgr oDr nq?kZVuk 32 o"kZ dk ukStoku ;qod Fkk blfy, mlds Hkfo"; ij Hkh bldk izfrdwy izHkko IkMk gSA og MªkbZojh djrk Fkk vkSj vkB gtkj :i;s ekfld dekrk Fkk blfy, mldh vk; dk vkadyu mlh vuqlkj fd;k tkdj mls {kfriwfrZ fnyokbZ tk,A
blds foijhr chek dEiuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g dguk gS fd vkgr dh vk;q o vk; ds laca/k esa dksbZ izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS vkSj LFkk;h v;ksX;rk izek.k i= gkWy ckMh ds ifjizs{; esa izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA vr% Dyse izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tk,A izkFkhZ lk{; esa vkgr iIiw mQZ 'ks"kukjk;.k 'kekZ , M 1 us vius 'kiFk i= esa mlds flj esa o nk,a gkFk esa xaHkhj pksVsa yxh rFkk og ,l- ,e- ,l- vLriky esa Ng fnu HkrhZ jgkA--ftjg esa ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd izn'kZ 90 esa tks okgu uEcj fn;k gS mlesa okgu ekfyd dk uke ugha fy[kk gSA
bl fook|d ds fuLrkj.k ds laca/k esa loZizFke vkgr dh vk;q o vk; ds laca/k esa ns[kuk gksrk gSA vc tgka rd vkgr dh vk;q ds laca/k esa ge ns[ksa rks vkgr us lk{; esa viuh vk;q ugha crkbZ gS vkSj 'kiFk i= esa mez 29-9-2014 dks 32 o"kZ gksuk crk;k gS rFkk Dyse ;kfpdk esa 32 o"kZ cjoDr nq?kZVuk vafdr dh gSA---izkFkhZ ds flj o gkFk dh dykbZ esa pksV vkus o vU; lk/kkj.k pksV gksus ls fuf'pr :i ls og dbZ ekg rd iwoZ dh Hkkafr viuk nSfud dke ugha dj ik;k gksxkA izkFkhZ us gkykafd viuh lk{; esa bl ckcr dqN ugha crk;k gSA vr% bl isVs mls 3000@&:i;s fnyok;k tkuk mfpr gSA izkFkhZ us pksVksa ds ifj.kkeLo:i ekufld o 'kkjhfjd ihMk Hkh lgu djuh iMh gksxh ml isVs izkFkhZ dks 2000@&:i;s fnyok;k tkuk mfpr gSA
vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj izkFkhZ ds 'kjhj ij vkbZ pksVksa ds laca/k esa CkrkSj {kfriwfrZ dqy jkf'k 174380@&:i;s foi{kh 1 yxk;r 3 ls la;qDr o iFkd iFkd :i ls fnyok;k tkuk mfpr gSA vr% ;g fook|d rnkuqlkj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr 'ks"k {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k lk{; vHkko esa lkfcr gksuk ugha ik;s tkus ls izkFkhZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha ik;k tkrk gSA””
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal as quoted herein above, the learned Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Hence, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, and thus the appeal having no force, is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.
om
Om/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence or legal provisions in determining compensation.
Pappu @ Shesh Narayan Sharma
Phool Chand
Ghanshyam
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
