IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT (1) SMT. SHANTI AND ORS. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (2) SMT. SHANTI AND ORS. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. (S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 39/2011) In ([CASE NUMBER]) (3) [ENTITY]. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (4) [ENTITY] VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) In ([CASE NUMBER]) (5) GHAN SHYAM VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (6) GHAN SHYAM VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) In ([CASE NUMBER]) (7) PHOOL CHAND VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. (S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 141 of 2004) (8) PHOOL CHAND VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (9) PRABHU NARAYAN JOGI VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (10) PRABHU NARAYAN JOGI VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) In ([CASE NUMBER]) (11) CHIRANJI LAL VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (12) CHIRANJI LAL VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. (S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 37/2011) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (13) BUDHA RAM VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (14) BUDHA RAM VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (15) SMT. PRABHATI AND ORS. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (16) SMT. PRABHATI AND ORS. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (17) JAGDISH VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (18) JAGDISH VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (19) KAJOD AND ORS. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (20) KAJOD AND ORS. H VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. (S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 42/2011) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (21) MOHAN LAL VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (22) MOHAN LAL VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. (S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 40/2011) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (23) SMT. PREM DEVI AND OTRS. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (24) SMT. PREM DEVI AND ORS. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (25) KAILASH CHAND AND ANR. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER]) (26) KAILASH CHAND ANR ANR. VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. (S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 35/2011) iN ([CASE NUMBER]) (27) ASHOPAL VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. ([CASE NUMBER] (28) ASHOPAL VS. [ENTITY] AND ORS. (S.B.Civil Cross Objection No. 43/2011) iN ([CASE NUMBER] Under [SECTION] of the [ACT], 1989 against the Award dated 25.9.2003 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in [CASE NUMBER]. Date of Order : May 13, 2011 PRESENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Mr. [ENTITY], for the claimants in Appeal No.32 of 2004, 33/2004,18/2004,141/2004,36/2004, 35/2004, 30/2004, 55/2004, 34/2004, 13/2004, and 21/2004 Mr. [ENTITY] for the appellants in Appeal No.2584/2003, and 2583/2003, Mr. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY], for the insurance company Mr.[ENTITY], for the cross objector [ENTITY], non-petitioner No.5 in all the appeals. BY THE COURT :
These appeals and cross objections have been filed against the award dated 25.9.2003 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in [CASE NUMBER], they are being disposed by this common judgment.
2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals and cross objections, are that on 11.8.94 at about 8.00 p.m. Jeep No. RJ 14 C 3319 and bus No. RJ 14 P 0396 collided near Dayarampura on Jaipur Agra Road, resulting in death of [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and serious injuries to [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. All these persons were traveling in Jeep. These persons were going from Jaipur towards [ENTITY]. Respondent No.4 the driver of this jeep was driving it in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed. When this jeep reached near [ENTITY] between Kanota and Dayarampura on Jaipur Agra Road some carts were lying on the road, hence in order to cross these carts the Jeep went on the other side and was in the process of coming to its correct side. At the same time a bus No. RJ 14 P 0396 also being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No.1 came from opposite direction i.e. from Dausa side. Because of rash and negligent driving by both the drivers these vehicles collided in the middle of the road, resulting in death and bodily injuries to many persos.
4. Only respondent No.3 the Insurance Company of the bus and the respondent No.6 the Insurance Company of the jeep contested the claim petitions and filed their respective replies to the claim petitions. Respondent No.2, the owner of the bus and the respodnent No.5 the owner of the jeep did not appear before the MACT. On the basis of the pleadings of both the sides, relevant issues were framed by the MACT. 20 witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants in all the claim petitions. They also submitted relevant documents in support of their claim petitions. One witness [ENTITY] was examined by the opposite parties. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the MACT decided issue No.1 in a manner that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4 only. The respondent No.1 has not been held liable for causing this accident and that is why respondents l, 2 and 3 have not been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimants. While deciding issue No.4, the objection by the respondent No.6 with regard to validity of driving licence of respondent no.4 was rejected, but it has been held that the deceased persons and injured persons were traveling in the jeep as fare paying passengers and as there is no coverage in the policy for the fare paying passengers, hence the insurance company of the jeep i.e. respondent No.6 was also exonerated from the liability of paying compensation.
5. The claimants by filing these appeals challenged the findings on issues 1, 3, 4 and 5. Whereas the respondent No.5 by way of filing cross objections in all the appeals challenged the findings of the MACT exonerating the insurance company from the liability and ownership of the jeep in question. It was also stated in the claim petition that the insurance of the vehicle RJ 14 C 3319 was made in the name of [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY], Plot No.10 Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi, Jaipur. It was stated that the present respondent No.5 is not the son of [ENTITY] nor resident of Plot No.10 Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi, Jaipur. It was also stated in the cross objection that Shri [ENTITY] son of Shri [ENTITY], resident of Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi Gahtgage, Jaipur submitted supurdginama of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle on 12.1.1996 before the Judicial Magistrate [ENTITY] and also submitted forged General Power of Attorney on respondent No.5 Stamp alleged to have been executed on 19.8.1995. This power of attorney is false and fabricated one typed on the stamp papers dated 12.1.1996. The stamp papers was purchased on 12.1.1996 and signature on the power of attorney of the respondent no.5 is also forged one which can be verified from the record as well as from the vakalatnama submitted by the respondent No.5.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants in relation to issue No.1 has argued that the accident had occurred only because of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.4 i.e. [ENTITY]. The respondent No.1 has wrongly been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation by saying that there was no negligence on his part. In fact it was a case of composite and joint negligence of both the drivers. It was proved by unrebutted evidence lead by all the claimants that the jeep was being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent no.4. When this jeep reached near [ENTITY] between Dayarampura and Kanota some carts were lying on the road. The jeep driver in order to cross carts went on the other side and was in the process of coming to his side, at the same time a bus No. RJ 14 P 0396 also being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No.1 came from opposite direction i.e. from Dausa side and collided with the jeep in the centre of the road. It was argued that in these circumstances it was a clear case of rash and negligent driving by both the drivers because on one hand the jeep was being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver and went on the other side of the road in order to cross the carts, on the other hand there was an occasion for the bus driver, that when the jeep went on the other side, he ought to have stopped his bus in order to give the jeep the way to come on its side. Hence the last occasion to save the accident was with the bus driver.
7. In relation to issue No.4 the learned counsel has argued that the MACT has erred in deciding that the deceased persons and injured persons were fare paying passengers in the jeep and there was no coverage in the policy for these persons and accordingly the insurance company of the jeep i.e. respondent No.6 has been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation while deciding this issue the MACT relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. [ENTITY] and others. The MACT has wrongly applied the principle of this jdugment in the present case because the case of [ENTITY] was relating to the liability with regard to gratuitous persons traveling in goods vehicle. In the present case the jeep was not a goods vehicle, hence principle laid down in judgment of [ENTITY]'s case cannot be made applicable. As per the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] at the most it can be a case of breach of policy condition even then the provisions of this section says that even a breach of policy condition does not come between the right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation from the Insurance Company because it is the statutory liability of the Insurance Company and of course in that case if the Insurance company wishes, it can recover the amount paid to the third party from the insured person i.e. the owner of the vehicle.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on [PRECEDENT]), [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
9. In relation to cross objections, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has argued that as many as 20 witnesses were examined during the course of trial on behalf of the claimants and documents were produced by the claimants but none of the documents as well as none of the witnesses deposed that the respondent No.5 cross objector was at fault in the accident. The respondent No.5 present objector sold out the vehicle to Shri [ENTITY] the Jeep No. RJ 14 C 3319 four months prior to the date of accident, as such present respondent cross objector is not responsible for the accident and at the time of accident he was no more owner of the vehicle i.e. jeep as such liability cannot be fastened on the respondent No.5 cross objector. There are so many dictum and pronouncements of this court and the Apex Court in this regard that at a time there cannot be two owners of the vehicle met with an accident. As such either [ENTITY] may be owner of the vehicle or either respondent No.5 but the MACT fastened the liability on the respondent 5 without touching this aspect as such the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law. The jeep was having the valid insurance of the relevant period w.e.f. 31.5.1994 to 30.5.1995 and insurance company was wrongly exonerated from the liability by the MACT as such the impugned award is not sustainable. The insurance of the vehicle was made in the name of [ENTITY] son of Shri [ENTITY], Plot No. 10 Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi Jaipur. The present respondent no.5 is not the son of Shri [ENTITY] nor resident of plot No.10 Ladi Walon Ki Bagichi Jaipur. This address is shown with collusion of [ENTITY] and after purchasing the vehicle Shri [ENTITY] made a false statement before the insurance company and vehicle was insured by making misrepresentation by Shri [ENTITY] for which he is required to be prosecuted in accordance with law and the matter is required to be remanded back by setting aside the impugned award. Shri [ENTITY] son of Shri [ENTITY], resident of Ladi Walon Ki Bagichin Ghatgate Jaipur submitted supurdginama of the registration certificate of the vehicle on 12.01.1996 before Judicial Magistrate [ENTITY] and has submitted the forged general power of attorney of respondent No.5 stating to have been executed on 19.8.95. This power of attorney is false and fabricated one, typed on the stamp papers dated 12.1.1996.
10. Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the cross objector respondent No.5 placed reliance on [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]), [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]
11 On the contrary, Mr. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], learned counsel appearing for the insurance companies state that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal.
12. The learned counsel for the insurance companies placed reliance on [PRECEDENT].
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the award passed by the MACT in the claim petitions.
14. First I may consider the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. In [PRECEDENT] (supra) this Court the vehicle ws insured for social domestic and pleasure purposes and for the insured's own business. The policy did not cover the use for hire or reward. Merely, because rice for the owner of the vehicle was being carried in the jeep, it was held that the jeep was being used within the scope of the insurance policy.
16. In [PRECEDENT] (supra) it was held that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passenger in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class.
17. In [PRECEDENT] (supra) related to head to head collision between a Corporation's bus and a private bus. In that case blameworthiness of the two drivers modified from 50:50 to 75:25 for the private bus driver and the Corporation bus driver.
18. In [PRECEDENT] ( supra) the vehicle was insured as private vehicle and it carried passengers for hire or reward in violation of terms of policy, not taken before Tribunal. Statement of victim passengers reveals the travel without hire or reward. This Court held that since it is not shown that passengers were traveling for hire or reward or the vehicle used was for public purpose it cannot be said that expression to any person used in [SECTION] does not include passengers in a private service vehicle. Insurer cannot get rid of its liability in case of accident of such vehicle.
19. In [PRECEDENT] (supra) the jeep was registered as a private vehicle. Insurance company not proved that vehicle was plied for hire or reward or any hire or reward was paid and also failed to prove that driver had no valid driving licence . This court held the liability of the insurance company.
20. In [PRECEDENT] (supra) it was held that if the owner had contravened the conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company cannot escape its liability in regard to third party risk but would be entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of offending vehicle.
21. In [PRECEDENT] (supra) a person sitting in a goods vehicle whether he is a gratuitous or a paid passenger would be covered by expression any person and termed as third party. If such person suffers any injuries insurance company would be liable to pay compenstion to him or his legal representatives.
22. In [PRECEDENT] (supra) it was held that death of pillion rider when the scooter hit a bullock cart because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter. The High Court relying upon circular of Tariff Advisory Committee which states that standard form for motor cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers affixed liability on the insurance company.
23. It is an admitted case that only the respondent No.3 the Insurance Company of the bus and the respondent No.6 the Insurance Company of the jeep contested the claim petitions and filed their replies to the claim petition. Respondent No.2, the owner of the bus and the respondent No.5 the owner of the jeep did not appear before the MACT. At this stage the cross objections of the respondent No.5 cannot be considered because of the fact that he has not brought to the notice of the MACT about his position that he was not the owner of the jeep. Now this ground cannot be raised before this court in the absence of any documentary proof or documents even produced at this stage. Simply stating before this court that he is not the owner of the jeep when the accident took place cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. The MACT on issues 1 and 4 gave the following findings after considering the evidence and the documents produced by the claimants and the insurance companies :
Issue No.1 :
18. ? 1 ? 20-25-30 ? , , .4 .82 ? , .82 ? ? , ? : ?
Issue No.4 :
24. ?. . 2003 493 ?. . 174 3319
24. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT on the issues 1 and 4. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the MACT on these two issues. In the absence of any evidence or documentary proof the objections take by the respondent No.5 at this stage in the appeals filed by the claimants cannot be taken into consideration particularly when the respondent No.5 has not contested the claim petition even after service of notice. Thus the cross objections filed by the respondent No.5 in all the appeals stand rejected. The appeals filed by the claimants regarding issues 1 and 4 also stand rejected. The rulings cited above are not applicable in the facts of this case.
25. Now I may take up the appeals filed by the claimants one by one regarding issue No. 3 awarding compensation to the claimants.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
26. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of [ENTITY]. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing jewelery work, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
27. From the postmortem report Ex. 71 the age of [ENTITY] was shown as 18 years. The father and mother of deceased [ENTITY] were 40- 35 years of age at the time of filing of the claim petition. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/-. By applying the multiplier of 16 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,68,800/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled to any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of creamation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT on issue No.3 in the claim filed by the claimants for award of Rs. 2,83,800/- as compensation to the claimants is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimant for increase in the amount is rejected being devoid of merit.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
28. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of [ENTITY]. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
29. From the postmortem report Ex. 5 the age of [ENTITY] was shown as 25 years. The claimant [ENTITY] is wife of the deceased [ENTITY]. Whereas [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were aged 14 years and 11 years. Claimant Smt. [ENTITY] is the mother of deceased [ENTITY]. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/- by the MACT. By applying the multiplier of 18 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,02400/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled for any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of creamation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT in the claim petition filed by the claimants on issue No.3 for award of Rs. 3,17,400/- as compensation to the claimants is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimant for increase in the amount is also devoid of merit.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
30. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of [ENTITY]. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
From the postmortem report Ex. 6 the age of [ENTITY] was shown as 25 years. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/- per month on the basis of the evidence and documents produced by the claimants. By applying the multiplier of 17 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,85,600/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled for any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of cremation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT for award of Rs. 3,00600/- as compensation to the claimants on issue No.3 is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimants for increase in the amount is rejected being devoid of merit.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
31. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of [ENTITY]. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
32. From the postmortem report Ex. 63 the age of [ENTITY] was shown to be as 28 years. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/- per month. By applying the multiplier of 18 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs.3,02400/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled for any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of creamation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT for award of Rs. 3,17,400/- as compensation to the claimants is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimant for increase in the amount is also devoid of merit.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
33. The claimants filed the claim on account of death of [ENTITY]. The dependency of the family was assessed only to Rs. 14,00/-. The claimants in the claim petition and in their evidence stated that the the deceased was earning more than Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no such documentary evidence was produced in support of their claim. It was argued that in future there was likelihood of raise in his income and in that case his contribution towards the family members would have been much higher.
34. From the postmortem report Ex. 7 the age of [ENTITY] was shown to be as 35 years. The income of deceased was estimated to be Rs. 21,00/- per month on the basis of the documents produced by the claimants. By applying the multiplier of 17 the MACT computed the compensation in the amount of Rs.2,85,600/-. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, the claimants are not entitled for any increase in the amount of compensation. The MACT awarded a sum of 10,000/- for love and affection of the deceased to his father and mother. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the head of cremation. This amount cannot be said to be inadequate. The finding of the MACT for award of Rs. 3,006,00/- as compensation to the claimants is confirmed. Thus the appeal filed by the claimant for increase in the amount is also devoid of merit.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
35. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs. 60,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 10,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
36. As per Ex.76 he received four injuries. As per Ex.77 Operation Note he received fracture in jaw. As per admission card Ex. 74 and discharge ticket Ex. 75 the claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 11.8.94 till 12.9.94 and operated on 3.9.94. The claimant produced Ex. 78 to Ex. 132 medical expenses bill for Rs. 4560/-. He received 23 per cent disability on account of accident as per Ex. 133. The MACT overall looking to the injuries received by the claimant awarded Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. Since the claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 4560 and the medical expenses in curred in the operation etc. granted one time compensation in this head as Rs. 10,000/-. For loss of income during the period he remained in the hospital the MACT awarded Rs. 5,000/-. In all Rs. 75,000/- were awarded as compensation. This amount cannot be said to be excessive and the appellant is also not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
37. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. As per Ex.76 he received four injuries. As per Ex.77 Operation Note he received fracture in jaw. As per admission card Ex. 74 and discharge ticket Ex. 75 the claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 11.8.94 till 12.9.94 and operated on 3.9.94. The claimant produced Ex. 78 to Ex. 132 medical expenses bill for Rs. 4560/-. He received 23 per cent disability on account of accident as per Ex. 133. The MACT overall looking to the injuries received by the claimant awarded Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. Since the claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 4560 and the medical expenses in curred in the operation etc. granted one time compensation in this head as Rs. 10,000/-. For loss of income during the period he remained in the hospital the MACT awarded Rs. 5,000/-. In all Rs. 75,000/- were awarded as compensation. This amount cannot be said to be excessive and the appellant is also not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
38. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has merely granted Rs. 3,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
39. As per Ex.134 he received three simple injuries without any fracture. Looking to the three simple injuries received by the claimant in the accident the MACT awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation in all. The MACT reasonably awarded Rs. 3,000/- for the three simple injuries. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
40. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has merely granted Rs. 5,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
41. As per Ex.50 he received five simple injuries without any fracture. He remained in the Hospital for one day. Looking to the five simple injuries received by the claimant in the accident the MACT awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation in all. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
42. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has merely granted Rs. 3,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
43. As per Ex.52 he received three simple injuries without any fracture. Looking to the three simple injuries received by the claimant in the accident the MACT awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation in all. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
44. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs. 38,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 3,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 3,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
45. As per Ex.70 the claimant on account of pain in thigh advised X-ray. But X-ray report was not produced. He sustained urinary problem. The doctors gave certificate of 9 % disability on account of urinary problem. The MACT awarded Rs. 38,000/- for mental agony etc. on account of urinary problem. Rs. 3,000/- were awarded to the claimant for nutritional food etc. and Rs. 3,000/- were awarded for loss of income. In this manner the claimant was awarded in total Rs. 44,000/-. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
46. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs.45,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 5,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
47. As per Ex.2 the claimant received injuries in the accident. As per Ex. NA 1 X-ray report the claimant received fracture in hand. He was admitted in SMS Hospital on 11.8.94 and operated on 12.8.94 and 16./8.1994 and discharged from Hospitazl on 25.9.1994. He produced medical expenses bill Ex. 57 to 62 in the amount of Rs. 700/-. On account of the fact that he remained in the Hospital and operated twice a sum of Rs. 45,000 was awarded as compensation. Since the claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 700/- only and for nutrition food etc. and for medical expenses a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded. For loss of income a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was further awarded. In total Rs. 55,000/- was awarded to the claimant. The doctors gave certificate of 15 % disability on account of urinary problem. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
48. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs. 55,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 5,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
49. As per Ex.85 the claimant received three injuries. No x-ray report was produced. Ex.88 is discharge certificate of RCC. The claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 30.8.94 till 18.10.94. None femer of the claimant was found to be fractured. He also received fracture of L-1 and L-2 [ENTITY]. The claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 950/-. Ex. 87 A disability certificate upto 20 %. The MACT looking to the injuries received by the claimant and disability certificae and for mental agony Rs. 50,000/- compensation was awarded. For medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. For loss of income Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. In total Rs. 65,000/- were awarded. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
50. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the MACT has only granted Rs 55,000 to the claimant for mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 5,000/- for medicines, hospitalization, nourishing diet and transportions etc. and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and loss of future income. Nothing has been awarded to the claimant appellant for loss of amenities of life, permanent disablement.
51. As per Ex.8 the claimant received nine injuries. As per Ex. 9 the claimant received three bone fractures. Ex.11 is discharge certificate. The claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 11.8.94 till 29.8.94. The claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 2990/-. Ex. 10 is disability certificate up to 18 %. The MACT looking to the injuries received by the claimant and disability certificate and for mental agony Rs. 55,000/- compensation was awarded. For medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. For loss of future income Rs. 50,000/- was awarded. In total Rs. 1,10,000/- were awarded. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
[CASE NUMBER] (CLAIM [CASE NUMBER])
52. The claimant filed the claim on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The leanred counsel for the appellant has argued that the claimant was 25 years of age at the time of accident and the MACT erred in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- only to the mental agony and treatment etc. and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards future loss. The claimant suffered 75 % disability. The amount in future loss awarded is on lower side.
53. As per Ex.76 the claimant received five injuries. Three injuries were simple in nature and two were grievous. As per Ex.2 discharge certificate, the claimant remained admitted in Hospital from 30.8.94 till 19.10.1994. Further he was admitted in Neuro Surgery from 25.5.95 to 29.5.1995. The claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 1438/-. Ex. 75 is disability certificate upto 75 %. The MACT looking to the injuries received by the claimant and disability certificae and for mental agony Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation was awarded. For medical expenses and nutritional food Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. As the claimant was earning Rs. 150 per day and his income was assessed to be Rs. 2700/- per month. In this manner the claimant was allowed Rs. 1,50,000/- as loss for future income. In total Rs. 2,60,000/- were awarded. The claimant filed appeal for enhancement of this amount. The appellant is not entitled for any increase in the compensation amount. The findings of the MACT thus deserve to be confirmed in respect of this claim petition.
54. In view of the above the misc. appeals filed by the claimants for increase in the amount of compensation stand rejected and the award dated 25.9.2003 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in [CASE NUMBER] stands confirmed. The cross objections filed by the non-petitioner No.5 in all the appeals stand rejected. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
([ENTITY] )J. OPPareek/ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
([ENTITY]) PS-cum JW