UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SHIV SHANKAR
LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-61
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on April 17,2012

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
SHIV SHANKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellant United India Insurance Company on the ground that vehicle, which is said to be involved in accident, was actually not involved and claimant injured received injuries due to his falling from stairs, as has been disclosed in bed-head-ticket (Exhibit D-1). Learned counsel argued that first information report also lodged with delay of 15 days and that despite injured having sustained 7.5% permanent disability, award of compensation of Rs.1,15,126/- cannot be justified.
(2.) IT was argued that signatures of Ashok, brother of injured, were obtained on bed-head-ticket and their authenticity and genuineness on said bed-head-ticket, in which injuries have been mentioned by doctor, cannot be doubted. Exhibit-6, which is mechanical inspection report of vehicle in question, also does not show major dent or damage thereto so as to probabilize version of claimant that tempo turned turtle and injured, who was travelling therein, received injuries. Learned counsel for claimant-respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that learned Tribunal has analyze entire evidence in detail. He referred to statement of AW-2 Ashok Kumar, brother of injured, who stated that he reached hospital directly and injured was brought to hospital by tempo driver himself. This witness has denied having informed the doctor that injured received injuries due to falling from stairs. Learned counsel also referred to statement of eye-witness AW-3 Sartaj and argued that injured was travelling in tempo, which turned turtle and injured received injuries on that account. Injured became unconscious on the spot. He and owner of tempo took the injured to hospital and informed his family. Driver Rafiq was driving tempo and injured Shiv Shankar was the only passenger. It was argued that it would depend upon manner in which accident took place and it is not necessary that major damage or dent should have been caused to vehicle. On hearing learned counsel for parties I find that all that is true is that in bed-head-ticket (Exhibit D-1) it is mentioned that accident took place and injured received injuries on account of his falling from stairs. Then there is also evidence to the effect that it was not Ashok who first brought the injured to hospital. It AW-3 Sartaj and owner of tempo, who took injured to hospital and got him hospitalized and, therefore, obviously it is not those who have given this information. Even if tempo has not received any significant damage, it would obviously be depending upon the manner in which accident took place. The tempo turned turtle having opening of both side. It is possible that passenger being carried in tempo may fall outside and receive injuries like present one. Mere fact that FIR was lodged with delay of 15 days, cannot be so fatal because it is proved that after hospitalization of injured at Kishangarh, he was referred to Hospital at Ajmer and it is in that process that some time was consumed. Claimants have produced two disability certificates; one showing disability of 7.5% and other showing disability of 15%. Learned Tribunal has accepted disability certificate indicating 7.5% disability and not subsequent certificate, and awarded a sum of Rs.47,000/- for loss of future income, Rs.18,000/- for loss of income on his remaining hospitalized for six months, Rs.10,000/- for physical pain and mental agony and nutritious diet and, Rs.32,000/- for other expenses incurred during his hospitalization for 67 days. Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.4,126/- towards actual expenses incurred on medicines. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.1,15,126/- has been awarded. I do not find any illegality in the award and learned Tribunal, in the facts of present case, has awarded a just and reasonable compensation. It is clarified that claimants shall be entitled to receive only 8% interest, if the amount actually deposited by appellant, on the amount of compensation. Appeal is dismissed, however, with aforesaid observation. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal itself, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.