Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Udaipur vs Shri Subhash Chandra Jain and Another

Arun Bhansali, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dt. 12.01.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (''Tribunal''), whereby, for the injuries suffered by the claimant, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and it has further been directed that if the amount of award is not been paid within a period of one month, the said award would carry interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation (''application'') i.e. 10.01.1994. The facts in brief are that an application was filed with the averments that the claimant was travelling in the bus belonging to the Corporation and the same was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the bus, who lost control and collided with a truck, which was standing on the side of the road, which resulted in serious injuries to the claimant; a sum of Rs. 9,99,500/- was claimed as compensation.

The application was resisted by the Corporation and after evidence was led by the claimant, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,26,000/- alongwith interest as indicted hereinbefore.

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards physical and mental shock, Rs. 30,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards inability of the claimant to walk/drive vehicle, Rs. 7,000/- towards attendant''s salary and Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance expenses.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no evidence of any kind of permanent disablement available on record. It was further submitted that the award of ''in default'' interest @ 15% is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur and Others,

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the award impugned and submitted that the claimant has suffered on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Corporation and, therefore, he is entitled for grant of compensation. The appellant Corporation has failed to lead any evidence and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation.

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.

The fact that claimant suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus is not in dispute. The evidence on record indicates that the claimant suffered non minor fracture of Tibia-Fibula and he was operated. The certificate dt. 03.07.1993 (Exhibit-27) produced by the claimant indicates that he was operated on 22.06.1993 and was advised physiotherapy and was declared fit to resume duty from 07.07.1993 i.e. 15 days from the date of operation. The certificate further indicates that he can do table work. Another certificate Exhibit-34 is a report dt. 20.08.1993 of Radiologist noted a fracture shaft of right tibia and fibula through proximal 1/3 and plate and screws were in situ. However, no evidence was led or claimed by the claimant regarding suffering any permanent disablement on account of the said accident/fracture/injury.

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards physical and mental shock without indicating any reason for award of the said amount under the said head and thereafter has gone on to award another Rs. 20,000/- towards alleged inability of the claimant to walk on foot or drive the vehicle, regarding which there was absolutely no medical evidence except claimant''s oral evidence. Further, the Tribunal has been benevolent enough in awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards convenience expenses when the claimant himself had claimed a sum of Rs. 2,500/- only.

The approach of the Tribunal in awarding compensation under various heads in such a manner cannot be appreciated. The fact that jurisdiction to award compensation vests in the Tribunal does not mean that the said jurisdiction is wholly unguided. The Tribunal is bound to record reasons for awarding compensation under each head and merely because claimant has claimed a particular amount as compensation, the same cannot be awarded as largesse. The claimant has miserably failed to substantiate his claim and the Tribunal has failed to record any reasons in support of awarding sums of Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental shock, Rs. 20,000/- towards alleged inability as indicated above and Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance expenses and, therefore, the same deserves to be modified to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the physical and mental shock and would not be entitled to any sum for alleged inability to walk or drive the vehicle in absence of any evidence. Further, the amount for conveyance expenses shall stand reduced to Rs. 2,500/-. The award of interest @ 15% in default being contrary to the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company (supra) also cannot be sustained and the said direction is also set aside. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award impugned is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 1,26,000/- the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 78,500/- towards compensation alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 10.01.1994. The appellant is directed to pay the amount of compensation within a period of two months after adjusting any amount paid earlier.