Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


GHEWAR RAM v MANJEET SINGH & ORS - CMA Case No. 1800 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 1518 (28 March 2007)


(Ghewar Ram Vs. Manjeet Singh & Ors.) 28th

Date of Order :: March 2007


Mr. M.K.Trivedi, for the appellant.

By way of this appeal, the claimant-appellant seeks enhancement over the amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for the loss suffered by him due to the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident.

The Tribunal has found that on 06.02.1998 at about 8.30 p.m., the claimant-appellant while riding his bicycle in the city of Jodhpur on the road from Circuit House to Bhatiya Choraha was hit by the offending truck bearing registration No.GJ 16 U 6615; and has found the non-applicants related with the said truck liable for compensation. On quantification, the Tribunal has considered and analysed the entire evidence available on record and has found that the claimant, then about 65 years of age, sustained one grievous injury on his head and remained hospitalised from 06.02.1998 to 21.02.1998 but then, there was no medical evidence about any permanent disablement; and that his treating doctor expressed inability to say if there was any loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.60,000 while allowing Rs.10,000/- towards one grievous and five simple injuries, Rs.8,000/- towards expenditure on 16 days' hospitalisation, Rs.6,200/- towards medical bills and further

Rs.35,800/- with reference to the other component of expenses like transportation and even future necessity of treatment. While making the award on 14.09.2004, the

Tribunal has allowed interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e., 30.08.1999.

Seeking enhancement, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal has erred in making award for a meagre amount of Rs.60,000/-; that as against medical expenditure of Rs.10,000/- only a sum of Rs.6,200/- has been allowed; that the claimant remained hospitalised for 16 days and was unconscious for 5 days and the amount awarded on that count at Rs.8,000/- is also on the lower side; that the claimant has established that he was not able to work as before yet no amount has been awarded on loss of earning capacity; and that nothing has been awarded towards damage of the bicycle.

Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the claimant-appellant and having scanned through the entire record, this Court is satisfied that the amount awarded by the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, cannot be said to be less than that of just compensation and this appeal does not merit admission.

True it is that claimant had suffered a grievous injury on his head and it is noticed from the medical evidence available on record that the claimant had a fracture on frontal bone but it appears from the Bed Head Ticket (Ex.3) that ultimately the condition of the claimant improved and doctor concerned has stated in the Discharge Ticket dated 21.02.1998 (Ex.4) that he was discharged `in no neurological deficit'. The treating doctor examined as PW-3 has stated in his examination-in- chief that,-

" ,

" & ' , , "

* . & "

There is no other evidence to find if there has been any disablement related with the injury. Therefore, it does not appear to be a fit case for awarding any amount towards loss of earning capacity to the victim claimant, who was 65 years of age at the time of accident and said to be earning in his tailoring job.

So far hospitalisation and other related expenditure including special diets are concerned, the Tribunal has reasonably awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- on that score at

Rs.500/- per day. So far medical bills are concerned, the sum total of the bills produced on record, Ex.5 to Ex.25, is about

Rs.6,175/- and the Tribunal has reasonably allowed an amount of Rs.6,200/- on that count. The Tribunal has also allowed Rs.10,000/- towards one grievous and five simple injuries and has allowed another Rs.35,800/- with reference to the future treatment expenditure and attendants etc. The amount so awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be low or inadequate with reference to the period of incident, age of the claimant, and the surrounding circumstances. There is no cogent and reliable evidence available on record for which any further amount be allowed towards property damage of the bicycle, said to be of the value of about Rs.1,000/-.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, with there being no evidence regarding loss of earning capacity, the amount as awarded by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.60,000/- in all, though moderate, cannot be said to be grossly inadequate.

Then, the Tribunal has allowed interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application, 30.08.1999; and with interest allowed at such rate of 9% per annum for a period of over five years, this Court is satisfied that the ultimate award as made by the Tribunal rules out any scope for enhancement.

The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.



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


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 |

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