Allowed

Virendra Singh v. Sujan Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2018CMA/1191/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal against a Tribunal order dismissing a claim petition, the High Court found that the appellant suffered injuries due to the negligence of the driver. It quantified the compensation at Rs. 6,01,747 considering 25% disability, income, and medical bills, and awarded costs with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 6,01,747/- awarded jointly and severally to respondents with interest at 6% p.a.; amount to be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts.

Virendra Singh Vs Sujan Singh and Ors. — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1191/2018

¶4

Virendra Singh S/o Balveer Singh, B/c Gurjar, R/o Village Tiyapatti, Sub Tehsil Ucchain, District Bharatpur Raj

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sujan Singh S/o Deviram, B/c Dhakad, R/o Village Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur Driver Motor Cycle No.RJ-05-SN-2292

¶8

Amar Singh S/o Ratan, B/c Dhakad, R/o Village Pidawali, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur Owner Motor Cycle No. RJ-05-SN-2292

¶9

National Insurance Company Limited, Division Office At Station Road, Nai Mandi, Bharatpur Having Its local office at near Nidhi Bhawan, High Court Circle, C-Scheme Jaipur Through Its Regional Manager Insurance Company Motor Cycle No.RJ-05-SN-2292

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent no.3 : Ms. Sweety Mishra

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

17/07/2018

¶15

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed.

¶16

(2 of 6) [CMA-1191/2018]

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deciding issue no.1 against the appellant. Appellant had appeared in the witness-box and had duly supported his case. Notice under Section 133 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle and he had admitted the fact that his motor-cycle was being driven by Sujan Singh on the day of accident. Challan was presented against the Sujan Singh by the Investigating Agency after investigation of the case. Sujan Singh had admitted his guilt before the criminal court and had been sentenced to pay fine.

¶18

None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2 despite service.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that FIR in the present case was lodged by the father of the appellant, wherein, it was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by Yogesh. Thereafter, respondent no.1 Sujan Singh was falsely involved in this case to enable the appellant to get compensation from the insurance company.

¶20

Appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 25.10.2013.

¶21

It was the case of the appellant that on 25.10.2013 at about 5/5.30 a.m., he had gone from Ucchain to Bayana road and was standing by the side of road alongwith Jagdish. In the meantime, a young boy driving motor-cycle bearing No. RJ-05-SN-2292 came from Ucchain side and struck against him. As a result, he suffered injuries.

¶22

(3 of 6)

¶23

[CMA-1191/2018]

¶24

On the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal had framed issue no.1 to the effect as to whether appellant had suffered injuries in an accident which had occurred on 25.10.2013 at about 5/5.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-05-SN-2292.

¶25

Appellant appeared in the witness-box as AW-1 and deposed as per his case. Appellant was cross-examined at length but his testimony with regard to manner of accident could not be shaken.

¶26

Driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness-box in rebuttal.

¶27

Exhibit-8 is the notice issued to the owner of the offending vehicle under Section 133 of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988 and a perusal of the same reveals that the owner had admitted that on the day of occurrence vehicle was being driven by Sujan Singh. A perusal of Exhibit-9 reveals that Sujan Singh had stated in reply to notice under Section 134 of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988 that on 25.10.2013, he was driving the offending motor-cycle and Yogesh was sitting on the pillion seat and the vehicle had struck against the appellant.

¶28

Although, in the FIR it had been mentioned by the father of the appellant that the vehicle-in-question was being driven by Yogesh but from the other material on record it is evident that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle. Father of the appellant was not present at the spot at the time of the accident. Moreover, the vehicle number had been correctly given by the father of the appellant while lodging the FIR.

¶29

(4 of 6)

¶30

[CMA-1191/2018]

¶31

Thus, from the statement of the claimant and Exhibit-8 and Exhibit-9 it was duly established that the appellant had suffered injuries in an accident which had occurred on 25.10.2013 due to negligence of respondent no.1 Sujan Singh.

¶32

Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on issue no.1 is reversed and the said issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

¶33

The next question that requires consideration is to what amount of compensation is liable to be received by the appellant.

¶34

Exhibit-51 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 25%. Since, the said certificate had been issued by the Board of Doctors, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the said certificate.

¶35

A perusal of Exhibit-51 reveals that the appellant was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident.

¶36

Although, it was the case of the appellant that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but in the absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, income of the appellant is liable to be taken as per minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Hence, the income of the appellant is liable to be taken as Rs.4,316/- per month at the time of the accident.

¶37

Since, appellant was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of the compensation vis-à-vis permanent physical disability suffered by the appellant would be ‘17’.

¶38

Thus, the appellant is entitled to receive Rs.4,316/- x 12 x 17 x 25% = Rs.2,20,116/- by way of compensation vis-à-vis permanent disability suffered by him. Appellant would be further

¶39

(5 of 6)

¶40

[CMA-1191/2018]

¶41

entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards loss of his future prospects and the said amount comes to Rs.88,046/-.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for five days. Thus, appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.2,500/- towards hospital expenses.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant ha submitted that the sum total of the medical bills proved on record are to the tune of Rs.1,71,085/-. Calculation of medical bills submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant has not been controverted by the learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶44

Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.

¶45

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

¶46

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs.2,20,116/- + Rs.88,046/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.1,71,085/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.6,01,747/-.

¶47

Issue no.2 decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents.

¶48

Admittedly, the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3. Hence, insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured.

¶49

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Appellant is held entitled to receive Rs.6,01,747/- by way of compensation. Respondents shall be liable for payment of compensation amount to the

¶50

(6 of 6) [CMA-1191/2018]

¶51

appellant jointly and severally along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. It is further ordered that the 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 Virendra Singh on monthly basis. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bharatpur, 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, Bharatpur shall further apprise the appellant regarding the amount which has been granted to him by way of compensation be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in some nationalized Bank for his benefit.

¶52

(SABINA),J

¶53

Mohita/77

Virendra Singh v. Sujan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh v. Sujan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Prem Devi and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Guddi Kumari and Others

Mool Chand Vs Omprakash and Ors.

Bharat Lal Meena Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr.

Smt Lalli Devi and Ors. Vs Rajkumar and Ors.

Ramkanwari Bai Vs Hansraj and Ors.