Nizamuddin vs Rajendra and Another <BR> Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Nizamuddin and Others

M.C. Sharma, J.—Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the judgment and award dt. 15.9.2003 passed by Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.9.2000 the claimant was going by a Jeep from Bundi towards Hindauli. At about 7.00 PM when this Jeep reached near Sachdeva Hotel on a National Highway No. 12, a Bus No. RJ-20-P-4260 being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent no. 1 came and hit the Jeep, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries.

Thereafter claim petition was filed, notices were issued, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 88,000/- in favour of claimant and against the non claimants.

The claimant has filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation while RSRTC has filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.

Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the Tribunal has manifestly erred in awarding merely a sum of Rs. 88,000/- to the claimant-appellant. It was proved by unrebutted evidence that the claimant by doing repairing of tyres and tubes used to earn about Rs. 4000/- per month prior to the accident. He sustained serious injuries all over especially on his body, specially on his right elbow, shoulder, hip bone and knee. There were fractures at two places on his right femur bone. He remained admitted in hospital for about 1 1/2 months and after that for about 6 months he remained confined to bed under treatment. During the prolonged treatment, he incurred expenses on medicines, hospitalization, doctor''s fee, transportation and attendants etc. and nourishing diet. His right (Sic elbow) has been shortened by 1 1/2 inches. He has got limping while walking and feels pain in squatting and sitting cross legged. He has got a permanent disablement of 17% Because of three difficulties and permanent disablement, the claimant is not able to do his work and is not able to earn any thing after the accident. Hence, the impugned award deserves modification.

E converso, the learned counsel for the RSRTC contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding that accident in question occurred due to the sole negligence of Rajendra though there was sufficient evidence on record to show that no negligence is attributed on the part of Shri Rajendra. He further submits that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of jeep driver, who has not been joined as party to the claim petition. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, the impugned award is not found to have suffered from any legal flaw, rather it is found to be just and apposite.

For the reasons stated, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and both the appeals filed by the claimant as well as RSRTC being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. Consequently upon the dismissal of appeal, the stay application also stands dismissed.