Allowed

Rajesh v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2018CMA/1141/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a tribunal award granting Rs. 8,24,473/. The High Court modified the award by enhancing compensation to Rs. 15,28,872/-. The court ordered the enhanced amount be invested as a fixed deposit with interest paid to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified to enhance compensation to Rs. 15,28,872/-. Amount to be invested in Fixed Deposit; interest to be paid monthly to appellant.

Rajesh Vs Sanjay Kumar and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1141/2018

¶4

Rajesh S/o Megha Ram B/c Jat, R/o Village Pipli, Teh. Lakshmangarh, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶5

----Appellant/Claimant Versus

¶6

Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Hariprasad B/c Kumawat, R/o Village Leddi, Teh. Laadnu, P.s. Jaswantgarh, Distt. Nagaur Raj. Driver Of Camper No. RJ-21-G-1056

¶7

Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Madanlal Prajapat B/c Kumawat, R/o Village Leddi, Teh. Laadnu, P.s. Jaswantgarh, Distt. Nagaur Raj. Registered Owner Of Camper No. RJ-21-G-1056

¶8

National Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Local Branch, Jaatiya Bajaar, Sikar, Teh. And Distt. Sikar Raj. Insurance Company Of Camper No. RJ-21-G-1056

¶9

----Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Ritesh Jain

¶11

For Respondent no. 3 : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Order

¶13

18/07/2018

¶14

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 7.11.2017 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was a young boy aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 60% as he had suffered amputation of right leg below the knee. Hence, the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3, has opposed the appeal.

¶17

Appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the

¶18

(2 of 3 )

¶19

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 27.09.2012.

¶20

Exhibit-41 is the disability certificate issued by the Board of Doctors and as per the same appellant had suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 60% and has suffered amputation of right leg below the knee.

¶21

As per Exhibit-9 medico legal examination report of the appellant, he was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident.

¶22

Although, it was the case of the appellant that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month but in the absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, income of the appellant has been rightly taken as Rs.3,822/- by the Tribunal in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time.

¶23

Keeping in view the age of the appellant, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of compensation vis-à-vis permanent disability suffered by him would be ‘18’.

¶24

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive compensation vis-à-vis permanent disability suffered by him to the tune of Rs.3,822/- x 12 x 18 x 60% = Rs.4,95,331/-. Appellant would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards loss of his future prospects and the said amount comes to Rs.1,98,132/-.

¶25

Admittedly, sum total of the medial bills available on record with regard to treatment undergone by the appellant is Rs.3,02,909/-.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had remain admitted in the hospital for 15 days. Hence, appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.7,500/- towards

¶27

(3 of 3 )

¶28

hospitalization charges.

¶29

Appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.

¶30

Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs.2,00,000/towards artificial limb. Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs.25,000/- towards transportation expenses and special diet etc.

¶31

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs.4,95,331/- + Rs.1,98,132/- + Rs.3,02,909/- + Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.15,28,872/-.

¶32

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 7.11.2017, is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.15,28,872/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.8,24,473/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain the same. It is further ordered that the enhanced amount of compensation be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts with some nationalized bank, initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellant Rajesh on monthly basis. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Sikar, in the interest of the appellant shall invest the amount in Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the appellant in some nationalized Bank. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Sikar shall further apprise the appellant regarding the amount which has been granted to him by way of enhancement and the fact that the enhanced amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in some nationalized Bank for his benefit.

¶33

(SABINA)J.

¶34

Mohita/38

Rajesh v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Lal Meena Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr.

Virendra Singh Vs Sujan Singh and Ors.

Smt Lalli Devi and Ors. Vs Rajkumar and Ors.

Omkanwar and Ors. Vs Babusingh and Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs Lalchand Meena and Ors.

S B I Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Hansa Devi and Ors.