In an appeal against an award granting compensation to the respondent for injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle accident, the appellant contended false involvement; the court found evidence improper but dismissed the appeal as the compensation amount required no interference.
Appeal dismissed; award of Rs. 2,01,000/- compensation to respondent upheld.
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 of 3)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3135/2007
Shiv Kumar S/o Ramota, B/c Brahmin, R/o Gothda, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.
----Appellant
Versus
Hari Ram S/o Bhagwan Ram, aged about 31 years, B/c Gurjar, R/o Dhani Kanawali, Tan Pratap Pura, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Sharma
For Respondent : Mr. Omveer Saini
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
08/03/2018
Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 2.4.2007, whereby, compensation was granted to the respondent in view of the injuries suffered by him in the motor-vehicle accident.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, no accident as alleged had taken place. No reliance could be placed on the statements of the witnesses with regard to the involvement of the vehicle of the appellant in the accident-inquestion.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that from the statement of the respondent as well as the eye-witness PW-2, it was duly established that the accident had occurred on account of rash
(2 of 3 )
and negligent driving of the appellant while driving the offending vehicle. Notice was issued to the appellant under Section 133 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) Exhibit-5 and he had duly admitted that the accident had occurred on 21.2.2002 with the vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-18-G-1772. It has also been admitted that the appellant was driving the vehicle-inquestion at the time of the accident.
Respondent while appearing in the witness-box as AW-1 deposed that on 21.2.2002 at about 3.00 p.m., he was going to village Babai from his house. When he reached the byepass, vehicle Tata 407 came from behind and struck against his bicycle. As a result, he suffered injuries.
AW-2 Jagdish, has deposed that on 21.2.2002, he was travelling in his jeep from babai side towards karmari. At about 3-3.30 p.m., when he reached babai bye-pass, vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-18-G-1772 came from behind and after overtaking him struck against Hariram. As a result, Hariram suffered injuries.
Exhibit-5 is the notice served on the appellant under Section 133 of the Act. A perusal of the same reveals that inquiry was made from the appellant with regard to involvement of his vehicle mini truck DT 3200 bearing registration no. RJ-18-G-1772 in the accident. Appellant had replied on 19.4.2002 that on 21.2.2002, the vehicle-inquestion had met with an accident and at that time he was himself driving the vehicle-in-question. Although, claimant
(3 of 3 )
himself had stated that the offending vehicle was Tata 407 but AW-2 has clearly disclosed the number of the offending vehicle while appearing in the witness-box. Claimant may not
have been able to differentiate vehicle Tata 407 with mini truck DI.
In view of the statement of AW-2 and Exhibit-5, learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident-inquestion had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the appellant while driving the offending vehicle. In the said accident, respondent had suffered injuries. While calculating the amount of compensation, Tribunal has taken in consideration the bills proved on record by the respondent to the tune of Rs,1,13,000/-. Respondent had remained on leave for six months and had remained under treatment during the said period. In all, respondent was granted Rs.2,01,000/- as compensation by the Tribunal.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal requires no interference by this court.
Dismissed.
Mohita/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the respondent.
Whether the appellant can be said to be falsely involved in the motor accident given the evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiv Kumar
Hari Ram
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
