Partly allowed

Kalu Ram v. Mohammad Hussain and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Apr 2021CMA/411/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 30,000 as insufficient compensation for a road accident injury. The High Court enhanced the award to Rs. 1,25,000, granting amounts for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and hospitalization, while rejecting future income loss.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed. Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,25,000 with 6% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of application.

Kalu Ram Vs Mohammad Hussain and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 411/1999

¶3

Kalu Ram s/o Shri Panna Lal Chouhan, r/o D-1/19 labour colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sh. Mohammad Hussain, Musalman S/o Sh. Haji Alladdin Nilgar, r/o shahpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶7

Sh. Ismail Mohammad, Musalman, S/o Sh. Jamaluddin through- Pareek Studio, Shriram Takiz, Shahpura, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Oriental Insurance Co. LTD. Regd, Office- Oriental house A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002, through Branch Manager, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Usman Ghani
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Judgment

¶12

/04 /2021

¶13

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred as ‘the Act of 1988’) for enhancement of compensation has been filed by appellant Kalu Ram against award dated 20.02.1999, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (afterwards referred as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.403/1994, whereby the

¶14

(2 of 6)

¶15

[CMA-411/1999]

¶16

learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.1994, when the appellant as pillion rider was going on scooter, a truck bearing registration No.RSE-876 being driven rashly and negligently by driver respondent No.1 hit the scooter, resultantly, Purshottam died and appellant & Bhanwarlal sustained injuries. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are owner and insurer of the truck, respectively. As per averments made in the claim petition, the appellant sustained grievous injuries in his left leg and in right hand. After the accident, he was admitted in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara from where he was referred for further treatment to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. There he remained hospitalized from 10.07.1994 to 07.08.1994, in between on 28.07.1994 he was operated upon for his fracture in left leg. As per the averments, on account of injuries, he is unable to perform his day to day work. Permanent disability has been caused to him for which, he will suffer for whole life. Appellant-claimant claimed Rs.6,04,000/- as compensation amount for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in the road accident.

¶18

After service of notice on respondent Nos.1 and 2, nobody appeared on their behalf and therefore, learned Tribunal proceed ex parte against them. Respondent No.3-Insurance company filed reply to the claim petition denying the averments made therein. The insurance company also raised objection that truck driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.

¶19

During trial, after framing of the points for determination, the appellant including himself produced four witnesses to

¶20

(3 of 6)

¶21

[CMA-411/1999]

¶22

substantiate his claim. Dr. N.K. Narwani, Sr. Specialist & Head of Department, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara in his statement proved disability certificate Exhibit-102 issued to the injured Kalu Ram.

¶23

Learned Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, has decided the issue of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 in favour of the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- only as compensation amount in the following terms:

¶24

Loss of income during treatment : Rs. 3,000/2. Transportation charges : Rs. 2,000/3. Medical expenses including : Rs. 5,000/attendant charges 4. Loss of income on account of : Rs. 20,000/disability

¶25

As per finding of learned Tribunal, appellant was admitted in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara on 09.07.1994, from where he was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he remained hospitalized from 10.07.1994 to 07.08.1994 for about 29-30 days. His income was assessed on the basis of minimum wages @ Rs.750/- per month. Learned Tribunal, in its judgment also observed that 25% disability as stated by Dr. N.K. Narwani was with reference to his left leg only and not with reference to whole body. As per statement given by the doctor in the cross examination, the condition of left leg will improve with the passage of time. The job of the claimant is of sitting nature. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- in the head of loss of income for the injuries sustained by the claimant after considering the oral statement of the doctor with reference to nature of work and disability as mentioned in the Disability Certificate (Exhibit102).

¶26

(4 of 6)

¶27

[CMA-411/1999]

¶28

Feeling unsatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶29

As per the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation to the appellant. The disability caused to the claimant has not been taken proper care of. As per Disability Certificate issued to the appellant, there is shortening of about 1½ inch of left lower limb and percentage of disability is of 25%. The claimant was also operated upon for the leg injury and remained hospitalized for about one month. Learned counsel submitted that amount of award granted by the learned Tribunal is not just and fair and liable to be enhanced properly.

¶30

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondentInsurance company, submitted that compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair looking to nature of the injuries as no permanent disability has been caused to the appellant. It was further submitted that the disability certificate has not been issued by the Medical Board.

¶31

The question before this Court is that what is the just & fair amount to be awarded to the claimant for the loss caused to him by sustaining injuries in the road accident? 11. As per Exhibit-101 and Disability Certificate (Exhibit-102), appellant sustained segmental fracture shaft femur (left) with closed undisplaced I.T. fracture left femur with fracture upper one third of leg bones (left). He was also operated on 28.07.1994 in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Upon examination of doctor, it was found that there is shortening of about 1½ inch of left lower limb and disability was assessed as 25%.

¶32

(5 of 6)

¶33

[CMA-411/1999]

¶34

As per the oral statements of the appellant deposed before learned Tribunal, he is no more in the job. Previously he was employed in Suzuki Synthetics from where he was getting Rs.1,400/- per month. He has not produced salary certificate. In cross examination, the claimant stated that now the factory of employer has been sold. After perusing the statement of claimant, it reveals that claimant in his statement has not stated that on account of injuries he is not able to earn. He also did not disclose his present source of income. From nature of the injuries also, it cannot be said that now he has become disabled to earn. The injuries sustained by him cannot be considered as causing permanent disability. Looking to the nature of job, nature of injuries caused to the claimant and the fact that no evidence is available on record regarding impact of injuries on the earning capacity of the claimant, this Court comes to the conclusion that he is not entitled for compensation in the head of loss of future income instead he is entitled to be compensated in the head of pain & suffering.

¶35

In the facts and circumstances of the case and the material

¶36

available on record, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal as compensation is liable to be modified and enhanced appropriately in the following terms:-

¶37

For pain and suffering : Rs. 50,000/2. For loss of income during treatment : Rs. 10,000/3. Expenses on transportation, : Rs. 20,000/supplementary diet and attendant 4. Medical Expenses : Rs. 20,000/5. Expenses incurred during : Rs. 25,000/hospitalization –----------------Total Rs.1,25,000/-

¶38

–-----------------

¶39

(6 of 6) [CMA-411/1999]

¶40

On the basis of the above conclusion, the appeal is partly

¶41

allowed. The appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.95,000/- the appellant would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization of the amount.

¶42

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J 8-Rahul Arya/-

Kalu Ram v. Mohammad Hussain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalu Ram v. Mohammad Hussain and Ors.

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

Mukesh Vs State

Gopal Vs State

Prem Singh @ Hadmat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Sharma Vs Mohammad Hussain and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunder Lal Vs State of Rajasthan