SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 29.09.2003 in Motor Accident Claim Case No.96/1991 (511/1988) whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim application and has passed an award of Rs.1,25,15,002/'- (Rs.One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Fifteen Thousand and Two only) in favour of the claimant- respondent after converting the amount from U.S.Dollars to Indian Rupee for some of the heads under which compensation has been awarded in U.S.Dollars.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by the award, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant Corporation") has preferred this appeal. The brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that on 08.01.1988 the claimant-respondent Alexis Sonier was participating in a march for peace along with citizens from various other countries on foot from Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat to Rajghat in New Delhi. The claimant-respondent is an American citizen from the United States of America. While participating in the aforesaid peace march along with group of other persons, between Jaipur and Delhi near Chandwaji, it was alleged, that a bus of the appellant Corporation bearing registration No.RNP-897 which was being driven the by the respondent No.2 rashly and negligently at a very high speed came and struck the claimant-respondent from behind. As a result of which, he fell down on the road and became unconscious as a result of the injuries he sustained in the said accident. He was taken to the Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur where it was found that among other injuries he had received a head injury. During the course of treatment three surgical operations were performed on the claimant-respondent, however, the claimant-respondent did not regain consciousness. On medical advice, he was shifted to Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital, Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat and despite all possible efforts, the condition of the claimant-respondent did not improve. The claimant- appellant was then discharged from the Hospital at Ahmedabad on 22.04.1988 and shifted by air under medical supervision of the Doctors to United States. The claim petition was filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 07.07.1988. It was stated in the claim petition that age of the claimant-appellant was 22 years at the time of accident and that he was a resident of California in United States. It was further stated that the claimant-appellant was working as a Carpenter and was earning about 2000 USD per month equivalent to Rs.28,000/-, as per rate prevailing at the time of filing of the claim petition. In the claim petition, it was stated in para 10 that as a result of the injuries the claimant-appellant had not regained consciousness and was continuously undergoing treatment in United States. In the claim petition, the claimiant-appellant made a claim for damages both special and general under the head of expenses incurred for treatment in India, expenses for transfer by air, medical expenses for treatment in United States both under Medi-Cal Scheme and expenses borne by parents of claimant-appellant. Damages were also claimed for future medical expenses, loss of income, loss of income for the attending mother, expenses for engaging attendant as well as expenses for sending of commissions for recording evidence to the United State of America. Under the head of General Damages, compensation was claimed for pain and suffering and mental agony as well as loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and future income. The appellant-Corporation filed their reply to the claim petition. Though the Driver of bus in question did not file any reply to the claim petition despite service and proceedings were taken ex-parte against him vide order dated 04.11.1988 passed by the learned Tribunal. The appellant Corporation raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the claim petition on account of it not having been filed by the claimant-appellant himself but by Mr.Surendra Nath Singh Javeria and his locus standi to file the same was challenged. The appellant-Corporation also denied the manner in which the accident occurred, as stated in the claim application and alleged that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the claimant himself. It was alleged that it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant who was trying to cross the road but midway he back tracked and met with the accident. The appellant Corporation also stated that the best medical facilities were available at Jaipur and there was no need to shift the claimant from Jaipur to Ahmedabad and without having taken the full treatment at Jaipur itself, the claimant had proceeded to Ahmedabad and thereafter to the United States without proper treatment. Under these circumstances, the Corporation cannot be held liable for the condition of the claimant respondent No.1. It was also stated that the expenses as shown in the claim application were high and exaggerated so also the amount of compensation claimed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: "1. Whether on 08/01/1988 non-petr.No.2 drove the Bus RNP 897 rashly or negligently at the Jaipur-Delhi Road near village Lakher and hit Alexis, as a result of which Alexis got injured and his mother had to face many difficulties in transportation etc. 2. Whether non petitioner No.2, was driver of the above vehicle and was in the employment of non-petitioner No.l and was driving for the benefit of the same at the time of accident. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the amount claimed, if yes then, how much amount and from whom? 4. Whether the petitions have not been presented according to law, and so, are not maintainable. 5. Relief."
(3.) THE learned Tribunal decided issue No.4 first and held that in the facts and circumstances which have come on record the presentation of claim application was in accordance with law and the same cannot be rejected for want of proper presentation. While deciding the issue No.1, the learned Tribunal after going through the evidence of the eye witnesses who were present along with the claimant in the march for peace. The claimant also filed documentary evidence in the form of the site plan, prepared during the investigation by the Police along with challan papers including Exhibit-52, the site plan. While discussing the evidence of the eye witnesses and the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was amply proved on the basis of the evidence that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant-Corporation and decided the issue No. 1 in favour of respondent No.1-claimant. So far as the issue No.2 is concerned, the same was decided in favour of the claimant and against the appellant Corporation as the ownership of the Bus and the fact that the same was driven by the driver of the appellant Corporation has not been contested. So far as issue No.3 is concerned, which relates to the award of damages, the learned Tribunal bifurcated the evidence in two parts. In the first part, were the witnesses who deposed with regard to the condition of the claimant, treatment provided to the claimant and the expenses incurred for the treatment in India and in the other part with regard 5 to the evidence recorded on commission in the United States with regard to the expenses incurred in the treatment and treatment given to the claimant in the United States. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal came to the following findings, as regards the damages both special and general to be awarded to the claimant:- JUDGEMENT_3217_RAJLW4_2010Image1.jpg So, total damages in Rupees : (699932.01 X 14) + 2715954 = Rs.12515002.14/-In round figure it is Rs.1,25,15,002/-" ;