Skip to content


Sampat Raj and ors. Vs. Mahipal Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 117/1974
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)239
AppellantSampat Raj and ors.
RespondentMahipal Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
.....allowed - - as, badly damagedand rendered useless. the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any good reason for reducing the amount of rs. 600/-.the respondents mahipalsingh & mukandsingh shall be entitled to proportionate costs in this count as well as in the trial court on the amount of rs......incurred in treatment.(2) rs. 150/- amount spent on attendants.(3) rs. 100/- loss of income due to mukandsingh'sremaining as indoor patient in the hospital for 15 days.(4) rs. 1,000/- for mental agony, shock, injuriesand pain to mukand singh.(5) rs. 500/- for mental shock and pain to thefather and other relatives of mukand singh.--------------rs. 2,000/---------------total rs. 8,4000/-the claim was resisted by the owner sampat raj, the driver laxmi narain and the insurance company. the tribunal, on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, awarded rs. 1000/- as damages to each injured namely mahipal singh and mukand singh from sampat raj and laxmi narain. it. dismissed the claim against the venguard insurance company ltd. and one lai singh. dissatisfied with the said award,.....
Judgment:

S.N. Modi, J.

1. This is a miscellaneous appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (District judge, Jodhpur) dated January 28, 1974.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 11 2-1970 Mahipalsingh was driving a scooter with Mukand Singh on the pillion near Rai-ka-Bagh Railway level-crossing in Jodhpur. Motor Truck No. R.J.Q. 8273 owned by Sampat Raj and driven by Laxman alias Laxmi Narain dashed against the scooter with the result that the scooter was damaged and Mahipal Singh and Mukand Singh received injuries. The Motor-truck is said to have been insured at the relevant period with the Venguard Insurance Company Ltd. Mahipal Singh and Mukand Singh filed a claim before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 8,400/-as damages. The details of the damages mentioned in the claim petition are as follows :

A: MahipalSingh(1) Rs. 4,000/- Cost of jiew scooter, as ,injvq|vedin the accident w.as, badly damagedand rendered useless.(2) Rs. 2,000/- For mental y agony, shock, injuries and pain to Mahipal Singh.(3) Rs. 200/- For mental agony and shock to thefather and other relatives of Mahipal Singh.(4) Rs. 200/- For loss of the use of scooter byMahipalSingh for three years.-------------Rs. 6,400/-------------- B. Mukand Singh(1) Rs. 250/- Expenses incurred in treatment.(2) Rs. 150/- Amount spent on attendants.(3) Rs. 100/- Loss of income due to Mukandsingh'sremaining as indoor patient in the hospital for 15 days.(4) Rs. 1,000/- For mental agony, shock, injuriesand pain to Mukand Singh.(5) Rs. 500/- For mental shock and pain to thefather and other relatives of Mukand Singh.--------------Rs. 2,000/---------------Total Rs. 8,4000/-

The claim was resisted by the owner Sampat Raj, the driver Laxmi Narain and the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, awarded Rs. 1000/- as damages to each injured namely Mahipal Singh and Mukand Singh from Sampat Raj and Laxmi Narain. It. dismissed the claim against the Venguard Insurance Company Ltd. and one Lai Singh. Dissatisfied with the said award, Sampat Raj and Laxminarain, the owner and the driver of the truck respectively, have preferred this appeal.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the partiers and gone through the record of the case. The Tribunal has awarded the following amount as damages to Mahipal Singh and Mukand Singh.

A. Mahipal Singh(1) Rs. 500/- for sustaining injuries and shock.(2) Rs. 500/- compensation for damage and depreciation of the scooter.-------------Rs. 1,000/---------------B. Muhand Singh.(1) Rs. 1000/- for sustaining injuries and shock.

4.So far as Mukand Singh is concerned the Tribunal was justified in awarding him Rs. 1,000/- as damages for the injuries, mental agony and shock suffered by him. He received extensive injuries on his head, back and knee. He remained indoor patient for 15 days and spent Rs. 250/- in his treatment. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any good reason for reducing the amount of Rs. 1,000/- awarded to him as damages.

5.As regards Mahipal Singh it appears that he has been rightly awarded Rs. 500/- as compensation for damage to the scooter & loss due t o depreciation in the value of the scooter. Mahipalsingh had to spend Rs. 150/-for the repairs of the scooter. Generally after accident the value of the vehicle is reduced In the circumstances the damages to the tune of Rs. 500/- awarded, to Mahipal Singh on account of damage to the scooter does not appear to be unjust.

6. Mahipal Singh has been further awarded Rs. 500/- for sustaining injuries and shock. In the claim petition there is nothing to show that Mahipal Singh received any injury. It is admitted before me that all the injuries mentioned in the claim petition pertain to Mukand Singh. Mahipalsingh has appeared in the witness box as PW 1 and has deposed that he received only a minor abrasion. According to him the truck dashed against the scooter and he was thrown away. He immediately got up, took out Mukand Singh from under-neath the truck and brought him to the hospital. All these circumstances show that Mahipal Singh sustained a very minor injury. There is also nothing to show that he got his injury bandaged or that he applied any medicine on it. There is further nothing to show that he obtained any injury report from the doctor. Bearing in mind the above circumstances, the amount of Rs 500/- awarded to Mukandsingh on account of injuries and shock sustained by him appears to be highly excessive. In my opinion a sum of Rs. 100/-would be sufficient compensation for the minor injury sustained by Mahipal Singh.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to Ex. A 1 which is a receipt issued on behalf of the Venguard Insurance Company Limited. On the basis of this receipt the learned Counsel for the appellant wants me to hold the insurance company to be responsible for this accident. In my opinion that cannot be done. No one has appeared in the witness box to prove the receipt Ex Al. There is also nothing to prove that the receipt was issued by any authorized agent of the Venguard Insurance Go. Ltd. On the contrary there is the statement of DW 3/1 Surendra Ghand Bhandiri who has deposed that the truck R.J.Q. 8273 was not insured with the Venguard Insurance Go. Ltd. on the date of the accident. The Tribuna, in the circumstances, rightly dismissed the claim against the Venguard Insurance Co Ltd.

8. In the result, I allow the appeal in part and while maintaining the award of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of Mukand Singh, reduce the amount of award in favour of Mahipahingh from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 600/-. The respondents Mahipalsingh & Mukandsingh shall be entitled to proportionate costs in this Count as well as in the trial court on the amount of Rs. 1600/-. They will also be entitled to get future interest from the date of the award till realization @ 6% per annum on the amount awarded to them.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //