Partly allowed

Khetaram v. State

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2023CMA/244/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award for injuries, contesting the 50% contributory negligence apportioned against the claimant. The High Court set aside the negligence finding based on scene evidence but upheld the compensation amount of Rs. 20,000 as appropriate for the 6% permanent disability.

What did the court decide?

The finding of contributory negligence is set aside; remaining findings are confirmed; balance compensation with interest to be paid within two months.

Khetaram Vs State — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41931]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 244/2004

¶4

Khetaram S/o Shri Chunni Lal, age 25 years, R/o Village Janapur, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Purshottam S/o Veer Chand, by caste Khandelwal, R/o Badgaon, Tehsil Sheoganj, Distt. Sirohi.

¶8

…...Truck Driver

¶9

1. Vishnu Agency, 9 Bapu Bazar, Sumerpur, through its Proprietor Shri Veer chand S/o Hansaji, R/o Sumerpur, Tehsil Bali, Distt. Pali.

¶10

…..Truck Owner

¶11

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.Rakesh Arora & Mr.Manish
	Rajpurohit
For Respondent No.3	: Mr.N.K.Joshi

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Judgment

¶15

02/12/2023

¶16

The present appeal is filed challenging the award dated 04.07.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road on the file of MAC Case No.84/1998, wherein and whereby the claim of the appellant-claimant was partly allowed granting the compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the injuries suffered by him.

¶17

The present appeal is at the instance of the claimant-injured. His main grievance is that the Tribunal below has committed wrong by accepting the contributory negligence on the part of the

[2023:RJ-JD:41931]

[CMA-244/2004]

(2 of 4)

claimant-injured. According to him, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the injured. The negligence was only attributable to the driver of the vehicle and the evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant-injured was on the road side with his bicycle and he was not in the middle of the road as claimed by the respondent No.1-driver of the truck. Therefore, the Tribunal committed wrong in fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant-injured.

¶22

It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal granted meager compensation without properly appreciating the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant. According to him, the quantum of compensation requires enhancement. 4. None has appeared and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2, the driver and owner of the truck. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company justified the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence. According to him, the evidence of NAW-1, the driver of the truck, clearly shows that the accident was not occurred with his truck and the accident was with the other truck, which crossed-by the side of his truck. The said theory of accident as alleged by the driver of the truck was rejected. It is contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence particularly the Panchnama drafted by the police, which clearly shows that the scene of occurrence was middle of the road and that itself shows that there was negligence on the part of the injured also. The Tribunal considering such evidence rightly fixed 50:50 negligence on the part of the crime-vehicle and the injured. Such a finding

[2023:RJ-JD:41931]

[CMA-244/2004]

(3 of 4)

requires no interference. It is also his contention that the Tribunal has granted compensation under various heads for the injuries sustained by the injured. Such a fixation was without any error, which requires no interference.

¶27

A close scrutiny of the Exhibit-2, the sketch of the scene of occurrence, shown by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, clearly demonstrates that the direction of the crime-vehicle is leftside. The evidence also shows that the road is straight. There is no obstruction to visibility of the driver of the crime-vehicle. The scene exposed in the said sketch was not the middle of the road. It was by the side of the road. Considering the width of the road, the crime-vehicle could be pass in spite of the position of the bicycle. Apart from that, the road is straight too and there is no obstruction to the visibility of the driver of the crime-vehicle. Even assuming that the injured was on middle of the road, when there is clearly visibility to the driver, he is not supposed to dash the injured, who might be fault by going on middle of the road. He could have taken steps to decelerate the vehicle or at the most, he could have stopped the vehicle by applying brakes and this was not done. However, on the contrary, the evidence of AW-1 as well as the sketch of the scene clearly demonstrates that the injured was not on the middle of the road and was by the side of the road. The Tribunal has not considered such evidence before fastening the contributory negligence of 50% on the appellant-injured. The said finding is contrary to the evidence on record and such finding is unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside.

¶28

So far as the contention with regard to enhancement of the compensation is concerned, as seen from the nature of injuries,

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41931]

[CMA-244/2004]

the injured only suffered hip joint injury and other injuries are simple in nature. The disability certificate produced by the injured shows that he suffered 6% permanent disability and the Tribunal accepted the same and granted compensation accordingly. The other amounts fixed under various heads were commensurate with the nature of injuries. The finding with regard to the fixation of compensation requires no interference.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of the Tribunal with respect to negligence on the part of the injuredappellant is set aside. The remaining finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. The balance unpaid amount shall be paid along with the interest as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.

¶34

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶35

11-Mrityuanjay Singh/NK

Khetaram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khetaram v. State

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

Shanta Devi Vs R.S.R.T.C.

Rajan and Ors. Vs Prahalad Singh

Madan Singh and Ors. Vs Babu Giri and Ors.

Smt.Patasi Vs Jaswant Singh

Deepar Ram and Anr. Vs Narayan Singh and Anr.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ambu Kanwar and Ors.