1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T BABU LAL VS. KESHAR SINGH & ORS. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 2027/2007 against the judgment and Award dated 19.5.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Civil Misc. No. No.39/2000. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 7th MAY, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA Mr. M.L. Khatri, for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Bhati, for respondents No.3 and 4. BY THE COURT : The present appeal has been filed by the claimant (injured) against the judgment and award dated 19.5.2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (in short 'the Tribunal') in Civil Misc. No.39/2000 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the claimant-appellant and against the non- 2. claimants and they have jointly and severally been held liable to pay total compensation of Rs.30,700/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 14.3.2000. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that on 30.6.1999 claimant-Babu Lal was travelling in roadways bus and while he was sitting on the roof of bus bearing regn. No.RJ-14P/2328 at the advise of Sambhoo Singh (non-claimant No.2-conductor of bus), a little latter near the outskirts of Undkha on national highway No.15 due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver-Keshar Singh (non-claimant No.1), he fell down from the roof and sustained grievous and simple injuries and became unconscious. A report of the accident was lodged at P.S. Sadar Barmer and the police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the driver-Keshar Singh (non-claimant No.1). It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident he was 18 years old and was earning Rs.5000/- per month by doing labour in agriculture and horticulture and due to the injuries, he suffered a huge loss. A total sum of Rs.3,02,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads. It was also stated that the 3. bus was being driven by Keshar Singh and Sambhoo Singh (non-claimant No.2) was the conductor of the bus. The bus was being operated by him for Rajasthan Roadways. The non- claimants No.3 and 4 i.e. the Roadways was the owner of bus at the time of accident, thus, it was urged that they all were responsible for the payment of compensation. After issuance of notices, the non-claimant/ respondents 1, 3 and 4 contested the claim petition and filed their respective replies wherein the averments stated in the claim petition were denied and it was stated that the claimant met with accident because of his own negligence, as such, no case is made out for payment of compensation, therefore, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed the relevant issues. During the course of trial, claimant-Babu Lal examined himself as AW-1, two other persons examined from the side of claimants, namely, AW-2 Mula Ram and AW-3 4. Singh. Various documents were produced and got exhibited from claimants side, however, no evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides held that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver-Keshar Singh resulting in causing injuries to the claimant. The learned Tribunal also turned down the other defence pleas taken by the non-claimants. The learned Tribunal after considering the age and income of the injured, determined the compensation vide its judgment and award dated 19.5.2007 and awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,700/- plus interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 14.3.2000 and further held the non-claimants jointly and severally responsibility for paying compensation to the claimant. The claimant felt aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. The notices of appeal were given to the respondents. 5. The record of the case was called and the parties were heard. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record at the time of determination of compensation and has awarded inadequate compensation, that is liable to be modified and enhanced and it was prayed that the compensation awarded be modified and reasonably enhanced. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant during accident sustained near about 12 injuries on his person and for that he remained hospitalised for near about 10 days. He incurred a lot of expenses during that period but the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper amount and only a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded in this respect. It was also contended that due to these injuries, the claimant could not work for at least twelve months and further he was not in a position to do usual work which he was doing prior to the accident and due to that, he has suffered loss of income but the learned Tribunal has not awarded a single penny in that respect. It was also contended that he had to make heavy expenditure on 6. rich diet to get speedy recovery but the learned Tribunal has not considered these material aspects of the case. It was urged that before the learned Tribunal he has placed all these things on oath and there is no rebuttal from the other side. The learned Tribunal ought to have given due weightage to the material placed on record. On the basis of these submissions, it was again prayed that a reasonable amount of compensation may be awarded. On the contrary the learned counsel for non- claimants No.3 and 4 refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant and submitted that the learned Tribunal after considering all these material, found that only one grievous injury had been sustained and the others were simple in nature and on that basis, adequate compensation has been awarded. The learned Tribunal has also awarded expenses incurred in medicine and general expenses incurred in hospital, thus, it was prayed that there is no scope for further enhancement, as such, the appeal may be rejected. 7. I have considered the rival submissions placed by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the findings and conclusions drawn thereon by the learned Tribunal. The main question which now arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate, reasonable and just compensation and it requires enhancement ? So far as the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the accident is concerned, no dispute has been raised by any of the party. I have seen the finding. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the material produced by the appellant, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver-Keshar Singh, resulting in causing severe injuries to Babu Lal. The learned Tribunal has also rightly turned down the other defences taken by the respondent thus they deserve to be maintained. So far as the amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is concerned, I have gone through the statement of injured AW-1 Babu Lal. He has specifically stated that he used to earn Rs.5000/- per month by way of doing labour. He has also stated 8. that due to the injuries sustained by him, for near about twelve months he could not work and, therefore, he suffered loss of income. The appellant has also produced the Injury Report (Exh.6) and the X-ray report (Exh.7). From the perusal of these documents, it seems that near about 12 injuries were sustained on the body in that accident and amongst those injuries, some injuries were on the vital parts i.e. on the ribs and one of them was also found grievous. In the said accident, one tooth of the injured on the upper jaw also broke. His statement is corroborated by the documentary evidence as well. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for the hospital expenses and Rs.4,700/- towards medicine but no compensation has been awarded for the loss of work incurred during the recovery period. It was stated that due to these injuries he could not work for about one year and there was no rebuttal from the other side. The other witnesses are also corroborating the same. Taking into consideration all these things and the amount determined by the learned Tribunal, a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- is reasonable to be enhanced. Thus, the existing compensation of Rs.30,700/- is enhanced to Rs.40,700/- i.e. just and reasonable. The claimant shall also be entitled to get 9% interest on the 9. enhanced amount of compensation as already granted on the earlier awarded amount. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award is modified and the awarded compensation of Rs.30,700/- is enhanced by Rs.10,000/- to the extent of Rs.40,700/- with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Except this modification, the remaining judgment and award is confirmed. The respondents are held jointly and severally liable for the payment of enhanced amount of compensation. Rajasthan Roadways is the owner for limited purpose and it has owned the bus as the owner, thus, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months from the date of order, failing which, the claimant will be entitled to recover the same as per law. No order as to costs. ( MANAK MOHTA), J. Sanjay/- 10.