Bharat Singh v. Dinesh Nath Jha Ors

Judgment

1. Dinesh Nath Jha S/o Satyadev Jha, R/o 31-32, Chatrasalnagar, P.s. Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Driver)

2. Mukesh Chand Sharma S/o Ganpat Lal Sharma, R/o 8, Ganeshnagar, Near Power House, Jagatpura, P.S. Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Owner)

3. New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Regional Manager ----non-claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. N. Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 15/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the impugned award dated 08.09.2008 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/ Tribunal"), in MAC Case No.872/2005 (1563/2004) titled as "Bharat Singh Vs. Dinesh Nath Jha & Ors.", whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant-Bharat Singh, has been partly allowed and a sum of Rs.42,000/- has been awarded as compensation. [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (2 of 6) [CMA-910/2009]

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

22.01.2004, the claimant/appellant-Bharat Singh was going on his Scooter (registration No. RJ-14-28M-4260) from Jaipur towards Salasar Balaji. Around 09:00 PM, when he reached near Ringus, an Indica Car bearing registration No. RJ-14-T-3995 coming from the opposite direction at a high and excessive speed, being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road, hit the Scooter of the claimant/appellant. As a result of which Bharat Singh sustained injuries on his face, head including a fracture in his right leg.

3. Consequently, the claimant/appellant has filed a claim petition stating that the claimant was 22 years of age and was working as a driver, earning approximately Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, prayed for just and fair compensation.

4. The respondent/non-claimant No.1- Dinesh Nath Jha (driver of Indica Car), despite service of notice, did not file a reply.

5. The respondent/non-claimant No.2- Mukesh Chand Sharma (owner of Indica Car) filed a reply to the claim petition, but did not appear before the learned Tribunal, thereafter, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him.

6. The respondent/non-claimant No.3-Insurance Company, also filed a reply to the claim petition on 30.06.2006, wherein, the Insurance Company denied the averments made by the claimant/appellant and submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle- Indica car did not possess a valid and effective license, therefore, the Insurance Company may not be liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (3 of 6) [CMA-910/2009]

7. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues.

8. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant/appellant, the claimant examined himself as AW-1, and produced documents including Final Report (Ex. 1), Medical Board Certificate of Permanent Disability issued by Govt. RDBP Jaipuria Hospital (Jaipur)(Ex. 2), FIR (Ex.3), RC of Indica Car (Ex. 7) and other documents Ex.8 to Ex. 23.

9. In rebuttal, non-claimants/respondents did not present any evidence.

10. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No. 1, held that due to contributory negligence of the Claimant, 50% of the awarded compensation shall be borne by the claimant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a round off compensation of Rs. 42,000/- along with interest at 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

13. Being aggrieved of which the claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

14. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the permanent disability of 6%, whereas from the Permanent Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board of Govt. RDBP Jaipuria Hospital, Jaipur (Ex. 2), it that reflected that a permanent disability to the extent of

17.33%. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant/appellant and improperly deducted 50% of the compensation for alleged contributory negligence. The site map [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (4 of 6) [CMA-910/2009] (Ex-20) clearly shows that the offending vehicle Indica Car was on the wrong side of the road and hit the Scooter. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award may be modified and compensation amount may be enhanced accordingly.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent- Insurance Company has supported the impugned award and vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and submitted that impugned award has been passed after due examination of pleadings and evidence, the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court and the appeal may be dismissed.

16. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

17. From the bare perusal of the evidence available on record, it is evident that the doctor who issued the Permanent Disability Certificate was not examined, thus, the said certificate can not be safely relied upon in evidence. Aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & Anr. reported in 2008 (7) SCC 305, decided on 13.05.2008. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant for considering permanent disability of the injured to be 17.33% lacks merit.

18. The Court finds substantial error in the learned Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence because the site plan (Ex-20) and the mechanical inspection of the Indica Car (Ex-21) clearly reflects that Indica Car was on the wrong side of the road when it [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (5 of 6) [CMA-910/2009] collided with the Scooter. Further, the cross-examination of the claimant/appellant has also supported the fact that he was not responsible for the incident and that the Indica Car was on the wrong side. The initial burden to prove Issue No.1, that is, contributory negligence of the claimant was discharged by the claimant/appellant and shifted upon the Insurance Company, who failed to produce any evidence to rebut the same. Therefore, the injured claimant/appellant-Bharat Singh can not be held liable for any contributory negligence. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal qua Issue No.1 regarding contributory negligence and consequential 50% deduction of the compensation amount are set aside.

19. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the injured claimant/appellant. Given that at the time of the accident, claimant/appellant-Bharat was 22 years old, this Court is of the considered view that he is entitled to an enhanced compensation under the head of future prospect as well.

20. After taking wholesome consideration of the facts above, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be enhanced to some extent and same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of Income Rs.3,000x12x17x6%= Rs.36,720/- Future Prospects (40%) Rs. 14,688/- Six months income (due to non-joining of duty) Medical expenses Food, Nutritious diet and Transportation Rs.3,000x6 = Rs. 18,000/- Rs.600/- Rs.10,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (6 of 6) [CMA-910/2009] Physical and mental suffering Rs. 17,000/- Total Rs.97,008/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.42,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs.55,008/-

21. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.97,008/- from the original amount of Rs.42,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.55,008/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 60 days from' the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.55,008/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount.

22. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Seema/22 (MANEESH SHARMA),J

: Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. N. Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 15/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the impugned award dated 08.09.2008 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/ Tribunal"), in MAC Case No.872/2005 (1563/2004) titled as "Bharat Singh Vs. Dinesh Nath Jha & Ors.", whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant-Bharat Singh, has been partly allowed and a sum of Rs.42,000/- has been awarded as compensation. [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (2 of 6) [CMA-910/2009]

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

22.01.2004, the claimant/appellant-Bharat Singh was going on his Scooter (registration No. RJ-14-28M-4260) from Jaipur towards Salasar Balaji. Around 09:00 PM, when he reached near Ringus, an Indica Car bearing registration No. RJ-14-T-3995 coming from the opposite direction at a high and excessive speed, being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road, hit the Scooter of the claimant/appellant. As a result of which Bharat Singh sustained injuries on his face, head including a fracture in his right leg.

3. Consequently, the claimant/appellant has filed a claim petition stating that the claimant was 22 years of age and was working as a driver, earning approximately Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, prayed for just and fair compensation.

4. The respondent/non-claimant No.1- Dinesh Nath Jha (driver of Indica Car), despite service of notice, did not file a reply.

5. The respondent/non-claimant No.2- Mukesh Chand Sharma (owner of Indica Car) filed a reply to the claim petition, but did not appear before the learned Tribunal, thereafter, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him.

6. The respondent/non-claimant No.3-Insurance Company, also filed a reply to the claim petition on 30.06.2006, wherein, the Insurance Company denied the averments made by the claimant/appellant and submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle- Indica car did not possess a valid and effective license, therefore, the Insurance Company may not be liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (3 of 6) [CMA-910/2009]

7. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues.

8. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant/appellant, the claimant examined himself as AW-1, and produced documents including Final Report (Ex. 1), Medical Board Certificate of Permanent Disability issued by Govt. RDBP Jaipuria Hospital (Jaipur)(Ex. 2), FIR (Ex.3), RC of Indica Car (Ex. 7) and other documents Ex.8 to Ex. 23.

9. In rebuttal, non-claimants/respondents did not present any evidence.

10. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No. 1, held that due to contributory negligence of the Claimant, 50% of the awarded compensation shall be borne by the claimant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a round off compensation of Rs. 42,000/- along with interest at 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

13. Being aggrieved of which the claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

14. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the permanent disability of 6%, whereas from the Permanent Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board of Govt. RDBP Jaipuria Hospital, Jaipur (Ex. 2), it that reflected that a permanent disability to the extent of

17.33%. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant/appellant and improperly deducted 50% of the compensation for alleged contributory negligence. The site map [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (4 of 6) [CMA-910/2009] (Ex-20) clearly shows that the offending vehicle Indica Car was on the wrong side of the road and hit the Scooter. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award may be modified and compensation amount may be enhanced accordingly.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent- Insurance Company has supported the impugned award and vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and submitted that impugned award has been passed after due examination of pleadings and evidence, the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court and the appeal may be dismissed.

16. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

17. From the bare perusal of the evidence available on record, it is evident that the doctor who issued the Permanent Disability Certificate was not examined, thus, the said certificate can not be safely relied upon in evidence. Aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & Anr. reported in 2008 (7) SCC 305, decided on 13.05.2008. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant for considering permanent disability of the injured to be 17.33% lacks merit.

18. The Court finds substantial error in the learned Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence because the site plan (Ex-20) and the mechanical inspection of the Indica Car (Ex-21) clearly reflects that Indica Car was on the wrong side of the road when it [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (5 of 6) [CMA-910/2009] collided with the Scooter. Further, the cross-examination of the claimant/appellant has also supported the fact that he was not responsible for the incident and that the Indica Car was on the wrong side. The initial burden to prove Issue No.1, that is, contributory negligence of the claimant was discharged by the claimant/appellant and shifted upon the Insurance Company, who failed to produce any evidence to rebut the same. Therefore, the injured claimant/appellant-Bharat Singh can not be held liable for any contributory negligence. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal qua Issue No.1 regarding contributory negligence and consequential 50% deduction of the compensation amount are set aside.

19. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the injured claimant/appellant. Given that at the time of the accident, claimant/appellant-Bharat was 22 years old, this Court is of the considered view that he is entitled to an enhanced compensation under the head of future prospect as well.

20. After taking wholesome consideration of the facts above, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be enhanced to some extent and same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of Income Rs.3,000x12x17x6%= Rs.36,720/- Future Prospects (40%) Rs. 14,688/- Six months income (due to non-joining of duty) Medical expenses Food, Nutritious diet and Transportation Rs.3,000x6 = Rs. 18,000/- Rs.600/- Rs.10,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:26291] (6 of 6) [CMA-910/2009] Physical and mental suffering Rs. 17,000/- Total Rs.97,008/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.42,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs.55,008/-

21. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.97,008/- from the original amount of Rs.42,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.55,008/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 60 days from' the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.55,008/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount.

22. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Seema/22 (MANEESH SHARMA),J