Partly allowed

General Manager R S R T C Jaip v. Girdhari Lal

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2017CMA/2612/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Motor Accident Tribunal award. It held that the delay in filing the claim petition was not a ground for dismissal as no limitation period applies post-amendment. However, the compensation was reduced to Rs. 85,700 based on Second Schedule calculations.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs. 93,500 reduced to Rs. 85,700 payable by the appellant to the respondent with interest at 7.5% per annum.

General Manager R S R T C Jaip Vs Girdhari Lal — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2612 / 2009

¶3

General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur- Owner Bus No. RJ 32 P 0212

¶4

----Non-Claimant/ Appellant

¶5

Versus Girdharilal S/o Shiv Dayal Pareek, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Rajnota, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

¶6

----Claimant/Respondent

¶7

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. N. S. Rathore For Respondent : None

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Judgment

¶9

18/01/2017

¶10

By the Court :-

¶11

The instant appeal has been preferred by the nonclaimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 21.02.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Case No. 56/2007 Girdharilal versus General Manager, RSRTC, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent was allowed and compensation of Rs. 93,500/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶12

Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 16.02.2004, the claimant/respondent filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 03.08.2000 at 5.00 AM, while he was on duty of the

¶13

(2 of 4)

¶14

[CMA-2612/2009]

¶15

appellant and drove Bus No. RJ. 32.P. 0212 and that bus met with an accident at Gurgaon, with other vehicle No. HR-38D-2359. Non/Claimant-appellant filed reply to the claim petition pleading that the said accident was occurred due to negligence of the claimant/respondent. It was also pleaded that the claim petition is hopelessly time barred because the claim petition has been filed on 16.02.2004, i.e., about three and half years, after the accident and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. After completion of pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. After recording evidence of both parties and hearing them, learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Aggrieved with the said judgment and award dated 21.02.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal, non/claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident occurred on 03.08.2000 and the claim petition was filed on 16.02.2004, i.e., that is about three and half years, after the accident, therefore, the claim petition is much delayed and should have been dismissed on this count alone. Learned counsel also submits that the claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the compensation can be awarded only in accordance with Second Schedule of the Act, whereas, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on higher side, which is not in consonance with provisions of law.

¶17

The first argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, is with regard to delay in filing claim petition. It is pertinent to mention that after amendment in Section 166 of the

¶18

(3 of 4)

¶19

[CMA-2612/2009]

¶20

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no limitation is prescribed for filing a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the claim petition cannot be thrown on this count and argument of learned counsel in this respect, cannot be accepted.

¶21

Second argument of learned counsel is about quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the findings of the tribunal with regard to age & income of the claimant and also the percentage of permanent disability of the claimant. The learned Tribunal found that the claimant was in the age group of 50-55 years and his annual income was Rs. 40,000/and percentage of permanent partial disability is 20.55%.

¶22

In Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation amount for death of a person of the age group of 50-55 years, earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum, has been shown to be Rs. 4,00,000/-. Looking to the percentage of permanent disability, age and income of the claimant, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 82,200/- only, whereas, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 90,000/-, which appears to be on higher side. Learned Tribunal could have awarded compensation of Rs. 82,200/- only for the permanent partial disability and Rs. 3,500/towards Medical Bills, totalling to Rs. 85,700/-, whereas, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 93,500/-. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified accordingly.

¶23

In view of the discussions made above, the appeal preferred by the non-claimant/appellant deserves to be partly allowed. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified. The claimant/respondent

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[CMA-2612/2009]

¶26

would be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 85,700/- from the non-claimant/appellant, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶27

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI)J.

¶29

Manish/100

General Manager R S R T C Jaip v. Girdhari Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager R S R T C Jaip v. Girdhari Lal

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

Aalam Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rohit Verma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jogendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Jeetu @ Jitendra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shehjad Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp