Partly allowed

Gopal Singh v. Bheru Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2018CMA/1481/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to enhance compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Finding the quantum insufficient for severe injuries sustained, the court invoked the doctrine of just compensation to increase the award.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,000 granted, making total Rs. 1 Lakh, payable within six weeks with 9% interest for delay.

Gopal Singh Vs Bheru Lal and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1481/2014

¶3

Gopal Singh S/o Kushal Singh Aged 46 years Caste Rajput, R/o Palri Jod at present Chawani Tehsil Sheoganj and District Sirohi.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bheru lal S/o Daya Ram Caste Gurjar R/o Devpura P.S. Badnor, Tehsil Aasind, District Bhilwara. (Driver).

¶7

….Non-Applicant No.1

¶8

Jagdish S/o Gopilal by Caste Gurjar R/o Dulhepura P.S. Shambhugarh Tehsil Aasind, District Bhilwara.(Registered owner)

¶9

….Non-Applicant No.2

¶10

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office 1000-E-8, RICCOH Industrial Area, Sitapura tehsil and District Jaipur. (Insurer)

¶11

….Non-Applicant No.3

¶12

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Richin Surana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶14

Order

¶15

19/09/2018

¶16

Appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’) by its judgment and award dated 27.03.2014 in Claim Case No.228/2012.

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CMA-1481/2014]

¶19

Limited grievance of appellant is that the quantum of compensation determined by learned Tribunal is inadequate in the backdrop of injuries suffered by him in road accident.

¶20

Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that appellantclaimant laid a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before learned Tribunal, inter-alia, on the ground that on 07.06.2011 he was driving Ford car bearing No. RJ-22-CA-4600, from Paldi Jod to Jawara, and when vehicle reached near petrol pump at Chikarda, it collided with truck bearing No. RJ-06-GA-030, coming from opposite direction. Appellant also pleaded that accident occurred due to the fault of truck driver as he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. Due to accident, as per version of the appellant, he suffered grievous injuries. A criminal case was registered against the driver of truck and after investigation charge-sheet was also filed. For claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,33,000/-, appellant has mentioned requisite facts including his age and occupation with monthly income @ Rs.8,000/-. As per version of the appellant, due to accident, he has suffered fracture on his right thigh and had undergone operation.

¶21

The claim petition was not contested by driver and owner of the vehicle, and therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them, however, respondent-insurer joined the issue and contested the claim by submitting its reply. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings settled three issues for determination. To substantiate his claim, appellant-claimant himself appeared in the witness-box and tendered 42 documents, which were

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CMA-1481/2014]

¶24

exhibited. On behalf of respondent-insurer, witness NAW-1 Sarvotam Sharma has appeared in the witness-box and testified.

¶25

Learned Tribunal, thereafter, hearing final arguments decided issue No.1, regarding rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle, in favour of appellant and against the insurer. While adverting to issue No.2, which was settled on the basis of pleadings of the insurer alleging violation of terms of insurance policy, the same was decided against the insurer. Third and the crucial issue regarding quantum of compensation was adjudicated by the learned Tribunal partly in favour of appellant-claimant and the learned Tribunal awarded total amount of compensation Rs.82,000/- under different heads.

¶26

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining threadbare the impugned award, it is borne out that due to accident appellant has suffered one compound fracture of his right leg.

¶27

Upon consideration of the afflictions of appellant, which are confined to quantum of compensation, in my opinion, though the learned Tribunal has assessed quite a reasonable compensation, however, it would be just and proper to grant some solace to the appellant by enhancing the amount of compensation. For granting indulgence to the appellant, I feel inclined to invoke doctrine of “just compensation” imbibed in Section 168 of the Act.

¶28

In totality of circumstances, it would be appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation to meet the requirements of

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CMA-1481/2014]

¶31

a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, compensation is enhanced by Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand) and the appellant is declared entitled for the same, i.e., cumulatively compensation to the tune of Rupees one Lakh.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in part as indicated hereinabove and the respondent-insurer is directed to pay enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand) to the appellant within a period of six weeks from today. If the enhanced amount is not paid within a period of six weeks, then, it shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal.

¶33

Anil Kumar Choudhary/26

Gopal Singh v. Bheru Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh v. Bheru Lal 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

State Vs Bhupendra Singh @ Bhoopsa

Baljeet Singh Vs State

Jagjeet Singh Vs State

M/S Rustic Art Exports Vs the E.S.I.C. and Ors.

U.I.T.Udaipur Vs Chhagan Lal

Raju Ram Vs State of Rajasthan