PRITHVI RAJ VS. SMT. BAKSHU DEVI (S.B.C.MISC. APPEAL NO.594/10) 1 PRITHVI RAJ VS. SMT. BAKSHU DEVI (S.B.C.MISC. APPEAL NO.594/10) Dated:- 20.5.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Manish Patel, for the appellant. 1. This appeal is directed against award dated 02.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore in Accident Claim Case No. 82/07, whereby compensation of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition has been awarded in favour of the respondent-claimant. 2. The respondent-claimant was hit by a Scooter No.RJ-16-M- 6968 which was being driven by the appellant-non claimant in rash and negligent manner. An FIR was lodged by the son of the claimant Mr. Gajendra Das at Police Station, Kotwali, Jalore, whereupon after investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 279, 337 IPC r/w Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant sustained injuries and was treated at Govt. Hospital, Jalore and MDM Hospital, Jodhpur. 3. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore claiming compensation quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/-. The claim petition was contested by the appellant-non claimant by filing a counter thereto. On the PRITHVI RAJ VS. SMT. BAKSHU DEVI (S.B.C.MISC. APPEAL NO.594/10) 2 basis of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the issues. On behalf of the claimant, AW-1 Smt. Bakshu, the claimant herself and AW-2 Gajendra Das were examined as witness. On behalf of non claimant, NAW-1 Prathvi Raj, non-claimant himself, was examined as witness. The claimant also produced proceedings of the criminal case, medical bills etc. as documentary evidence which were exhibited as Ex.1 to Ex.34. 4. After consideration of the evidence on record, the tribunal arrived at the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant-non claimant and determined the compensation payable to the respondent- claimant at Rs. 10,000/-. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the tribunal has seriously erred in holding the appellant-non claimant guilty for rash and negligent driving. It is submitted by the learned counsel that without there being any negligence on the part of the appellant- non claimant, an amount of Rs.4553.19 was paid by the appellant-non claimant to the respondent-claimant on humanitarian ground which is apparent from the documentary evidence on record. It is submitted that the respondent-claimant did not sustain the injuries as claimed and for the simple bruises suffered on account of negligence on the part of the respondent- claimant herself, the award of compensation passed by the PRITHVI RAJ VS. SMT. BAKSHU DEVI (S.B.C.MISC. APPEAL NO.594/10) 3 tribunal in her favour is ex-facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the nature of injuries, the amount of compensation awarded is quite excessive. 6. It is to be noticed that the accident occurred is not in dispute. Admittedly, on account of the accident occurred, the appellant-non claimant faced the criminal prosecution. It has come on record that after the accident the appellant-non claimant had accompanied the injured respondent-claimant to the Hospital. The appellant-non claimant has claimed that he has paid the expenditure incurred in the treatment of respondent- claimant. 7. In considered opinion of this Court, on the basis of evidence on record, the rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant-non claimant has rightly been held proved by the tribunal. 8. It is claimed that son of the respondent-claimant demanded the amount of treatment Rs.4550/- which was paid by the appellant-non claimant in the premises of the Collectorate, however, Ex.A-1 produced on record does not bear the signature of the person alleged to have received the payment. Suffice it to say that the appellant-non claimant has not been able to prove the payment made as aforesaid by producing any cogent evidence on record. As per the injury PRITHVI RAJ VS. SMT. BAKSHU DEVI (S.B.C.MISC. APPEAL NO.594/10) 4 report Ex.A-6, the claimant has sustained three injuries of simple nature. The tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs. 3000/- for the injuries sustained and Rs. 5000/- for expenditure incurred for treatment which was supported by documentary evidence on record. For the mental agony, a meagre amount of Rs. 1000/- and for the loss of income Rs. 500/- have been awarded by the tribunal. Thus, the total an amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the tribunal, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be excessive so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 9. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. In view of the discussion above, the appeal lacks merit, it is hereby dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Rp/-