Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH CHAND GHOSI versus STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SURESH CHAND GHOSI v STATE OF RAJ AND ORS - CW Case No. 789 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 9 (1 January 2006)

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.981/2006

Pulawarti Venkataratnam vs Ganesh Ram & Ors 09.01.2007

Hon'ble Mr.R.C.Gandhi,J

Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodia,for the appellant.

This appeal has arisen out of the award dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Khetri, Jhunjhunu whereby a sum of of Rs.30,650/- has been awarded in favour of the appellant/ claimant for sustaining an injury.

The appellant met with an accident which took place with a

Scooter bearing No. RJ-18 1M-5096 being driven by respondent No.1 as a result of which appellant sustained fracture injury on his wrist of the left hand causing disability to the extent of 25%. He preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal. Respondents were served and filed reply. On consideration of pleadings, following issues were framed: 1.Whether the applicant Pulawarti Venkataratnam sustained grievous injury due to rash and negligent driving by the owner(Ganeshram) of the the scooter No. RJ 18 1M 5096 at 11.30 a.m at village Kolihan Area in front of the office of

Central Office as a result of which he got permanent disablement ? 2.Whether the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle for his own interest or benefits? 3..Whether the non-applicant No.2 Insurance

Company can escape from its liability by taking the preliminary objections and specific pleas in its reply / objections. If not,what will be its effect ? 4.Whether the claimant can get any additional amount as claimed in the petition under any other law ? 5.Relief?

Both the parties led evidence. On appreciation of the evidence, the appellant has been awarded the aforesaid award amount.

Aggrieved of the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed this appeal urging that the compensation awarded is not adequate.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the averments made in the appeal and also the impugned award. It is seen that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the evidence that the appellant had received only one injury on his wrist of the left hand and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,650/- is quite adequate.

Appellant had remained in hospital for about 11 days where he got free medical aid. He is a Survey Officer in the office of Hindustan

Copper Ltd.(Mines Branch). He has not suffered in terms of money as he has drawn salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. I am satisfied with the award, which is adequate, passed by the

Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence. No interference is called for in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

(RC Gandhi),J. om


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.