High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State Of U.P. v. Gurudeen Ram Jaiswal - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 820 of 1982  RD-AH 15838 (20 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
First Appeal From Order No. 820 of 1982
State of U.P. Through Director,
Horticulture, Lucknow ............ Appellant
Guru Din Ram Jaiswal and another ............ Respondents
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
Heard Sri V. C. Dixit, learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant. No one appears for the claimant-respondent in spite of list being revised number of times.
This is an appeal against the judgment, order and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad dated 31.7.1982 passed in MAC No. 118 of 1981 (Guru Din Ram Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and others). The claimant Guru Din Ram, Sub Divisional Magistrate was travelling by official jeep No. U.R.G.-5430. The jeep was being driven by the driver Jeet lal. The jeep suddenly overturned causing injury to the claimant-respondent. The left thumb of the claimant-respondent was fractured and there was some shortening in it. Therefore, the claimant-respondent had preferred the claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 11th June 1981. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order awarded a total of Rs.34,400/- in the following manner :
(i)Loss of income Rs. 8,400/-
(ii)Medical expenses Rs. 1,000/-
(iii) Loss of mental peace, bodily pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
(iv) Loss of pleasure and family life Rs. 10,000/-
(v)For service of an assistant Rs. 10,000/-
Aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred by the State of U.P. through Director, Horticulture, Lucknow.
Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it was the case of no fault liability. There was no negligence on part of the driver of the jeep. The accident had taken place due to the mechanical fault and, therefore, no liability other than under the provisions of no fault liability can be imposed upon the appellant. I have considered the above submission. No doubt the accident had taken place due to the mechanical fault in the jeep as the nut of the stearing rod had broken, on the account of which the driver lost control and jeep had turned into turtle. There are no pleadings or evidence to the effect that the appellant as the owner of the jeep has taken all reasonable care to check the vehicle before it was put on the road. No effort was made by the appellant to detect the latent defect if any in the vehicle before carrying the claimant-respondent in the ill-fated jeep. In the absence of such pleadings and the evidence even if the accident had not taken place due to the negligence on part of the driver in driving vehicle the liability to pay the compensation would rest upon the appellant. Therefore, the above submission fails.
Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The record reveals that the claimant-respondent had suffered some injury in the left thumb. There was no permanent disability. On the other hand, it was admitted to the claimant-respondent that he had not suffered any loss of income. He was being paid full salary. The claimant-respondent himself has admitted that he has not suffered any pecuniary loss, for the reasons that the he was paid full salary by his employer regularly. There is no evidence even to the effect that the salary of the claimant-respondent was going to be affected in future on account of the aforesaid injury. Therefore, there is no loss of earning capacity due to the above injury. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal patently erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 8,400/- on account of loss of the earning capacity to the claimant-respondent.
A further sum of Rs. 1000/- has been awarded for expenses incurred on medical treatment. This amount also could not have been awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant-respondent admits that all fees of the doctor and medicines in connection with his treatment and hospitalisation was borne by the department. Therefore, the claimant-respondent had not incurred any expenditure on medical treatment from his own pocket. The submission in that he has purchased tonics and some other medicines from out side the hospital is not acceptable in the absence of any vouchers, cash memo or any other evidence to justify the grant of the said amount. Accordingly the award of Rs. 1000/- for medical treatment awarded by the Tribunal in the above circumstances is also not justified.
The Tribunal had further only on conjuncture awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the service of an assistant. Admittedly the claimant-respondent had not suffered any permanent disability, therefore, even if there was some injury sustained by him in his left thumb no compensation could have been awarded for the expenses of an assistant.
In view of the above, the appeal succeeds in part and is allowed to the above extent. The judgment order and award of the Tribunal dated 31.7.1982 passed in MAC No. 118 of 1981 (Guru Din Ram Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and others) is modified to the above extent and the compensation of Rs. 34400/- as awarded by it is reduced by sum of Rs. 19,400/-. In the end the claimant-respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 15000/- only as compensation with interest pendentilite in future @ 6% per annum as mentioned.
The appeal succeeds in part. No orders as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.