Allowed

Geeta Devi v. Lalchand Meena and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2018CMA/1442/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award allowing enhanced compensation of Rs. 137,747 for permanent disability, loss of future prospects, and other items, subject to direction to place the amount in fixed deposit via District Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to grant Rs. 1,37,747 compensation; amount invested in FDR by District Legal Services Authority; monthly interest payable to appellant.

Geeta Devi Vs Lalchand Meena and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1442/2018

¶3

Geeta Devi W/o Shri Gopal Sharma , R/o Makaan No. 71, Amarnath Ki Bageechi, Near Shamshan Ghat, Janta Colony, Jaipur, Presently R/o Vijay Nagarr, Kacchi Basti, Lankapuri, Bhatta Basti, P.s. Shastri Nagar, Distt. Jaipur

¶4

----Appellant-Claimant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Lalchand Meena S/o Shri Narayan Meena B/c Meena , R/o Jindon Ki Dhani, Purani Chungi, Paladi Meena, Agra Road, Thana Kanota Distt. Jaipur Owner Tractor Bearing No. Rj-211R-5056

¶7

Prabhu Lal Meena S/o Jagdish , R/o Mou. Chhawani, Tonk, Presently, Ayodhya Nagar, Near Paultry Farm, Jamdoli Driver Tractor Bearing No. Rj-21-1R-5056

¶8

United India Insurance Company Limited , Through Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. Vartiya, Transport Nagar, Jaipur Insurance Validity Date 06.11.2001 To 05.11.2002, Beema Policy No. 40400/31/01/05932 Issuing Office/branch/place- Transport Nagar Jaipur Insurer Tractor No. Rj-21-1R-5056

¶9

Ramji Lal Meena S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena , R/o Village Moradi Teh. Bassi Distt. Jaipur Insured Tractor No. Rj-14-1R5056

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Virendra Agrawal with Mr. Prateek Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Order

¶14

18/07/2018

¶15

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CMA-1442/2018]

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

¶19

compensation amount granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side. Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 11.03%. Appellant was carrying a pregnancy of eight months, at the time of accident and on account of injuries suffered by her, she had delivered a stillborn child.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has opposed the appeal.

¶21

Appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 04.08.2002.

¶22

As per Exhibit-12, appellant had suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 11.03%. The said certificate has been issued by Board of Doctors and there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the said certificate. As per the said certificate, appellant was aged between 31 to 35 years, at the time of accident. Hence, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of compensation vis-à-vis permanent disability suffered by the appellant would be ‘16’.

¶23

As per Exhibit-13, appellant was carrying a pregnancy of eight months.

¶24

As per Exhibit-28, appellant had delivered a stillborn child on 29.08.2002.

¶25

Accident in the present case had occurred on 04.08.2003. Although, it was the case of the appellant that she was earning Rs. 3,600/- per month by doing tuition work, but in the absence of any documentary evidence on record in this regard, income of the appellant is liable to be taken as Rs. 1,700/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State, at the relevant time.

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CMA-1442/2018]

¶28

Thus, the appellant is entitled to receive Rs. 1,700/- x 12 x 16 x 11.03% = Rs.36,001/- by way of compensation vis-à-vis permanent disability suffered by her. Appellant would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards loss of her future prospects and the said amount comes to Rs.14,400/-.

¶29

Admittedly, medical bills proved on record are to the tune of Rs. 846/-.

¶30

Appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for 3 days. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 1,500/- towards hospital expenses.

¶31

Although, as per Exhibit-28, appellant had delivered a stillborn child on 29.08.2002, but the said document does not lead to the inference that the appellant had delivered a stillborn child on account of injuries suffered by her in the accident.

¶32

AW-1 Dr. P.C. Joshi deposed in his examination-in-chief that on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant, she had given birth to a stillborn child, but in his cross-examination he deposed that he had not treated the appellant.

¶33

In the absence of any documentary evidence on record to the effect that the appellant had given birth to a stillborn child on account of injuries suffered by her, it cannot be said that she had given birth to a stillborn child on account of injuries suffered by her.

¶34

Appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation expenses and special diet.

¶35

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive, in all,

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

[CMA-1442/2018]

¶38

Rs.36,001/- + Rs.14,400/- + Rs.846/- + Rs.1,500/- + Rs.75,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs.1,37,747/-.

¶39

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 14.12.2017, is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 1,37,747/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.62,300/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unchanged. 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 on monthly basis. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur District, 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, Jaipur District shall further apprise the appellant regarding the amount which has been granted to her by way of enhancement and the fact that the enhanced amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in some nationalized Bank for her benefit.

¶40

(SABINA)J.

¶41

Sudha/43

Geeta Devi v. Lalchand Meena and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi v. Lalchand Meena 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

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.

Rajesh Vs Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

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