Allowed

Shri Thandi Ram Meena v. Mohammed Irshad Khan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2018CMA/1757/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil miscellaneous appeal challenging a tribunal award in a motor accident compensation claim. The High Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 6,17,622 to Rs. 10,39,008 based on 50.57% disability, adjusted income, future prospects, and medical/hospitalization expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 6,17,622 to Rs. 10,39,008. Enhanced amount invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts at a nationalized bank; interest payable monthly to the appellant.

Shri Thandi Ram Meena Vs Mohammed Irshad Khan and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUD~CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT 3AIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1757/2018

¶3

Shri Thandi Ram Meena S/o Ram Charan Meena, B/c Meena , R/o Jadavta Police Station SoorwaI, Distt. Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan

¶4

Versus

¶5

I. Mohammed Irshad Khan ,,S/o Shri Mukhtyar Khan, B/c
Musalman k[d; V?l(acjet $$a$ $e;Ji.,And Thana Malarna a, <> i a$' .,-,$ @P $$ -.. &."-
.$!q *;-%,J, "" w %,'..,f$ $ib%.$ "
Dungar L~~~~, +-@~stt.~Sawai Madhopur Ra3. dBqiver Of Vehicle
%
t ,,,
TrailorMo'r'"Rj.25/ga.l314 ";it .$ Y.At 4
g-
2. **?* Mqkar Khan S/o Shri Bhakra Khan, B/c ~usa,lh,an $y ,*@;>,& , R/o
iVillage "i+,r Shesha, Thana Malarna Dungar, distt;%$awai y9 -
Madhopur Raj. Owner Of Vehicle Trailor No.
K$Y%?-~*-$%<br>+F;ij125/ga. 1314 $g; i 8 ;; ..~ <;a!, . . ,,
/tii m- e
P "%$? -* 4 $:-$ .y?",&f 7-3
3. The New 1 d 87i [~~~p,$,$;R~$l@&mpaR 92 %.v* %&,, +-b2,w-,.. :,- Limited Through Its
* ,& yp $ * :G.ffl!zw6,y &< x.;c+s -+'P & 6&
Manager I C qy;& ?'!a; .;v.~,;& figafifS$ffBqan XXk, ,,,. ., i H ospita 1 Ba ja riya
>f 5%2<j?\d:.$;e*. ,,.,,& &:2$&&g)$;,s.sP
Sawai Madhopu~Raj:$n;~w;qe:$@f Vehicle Trailor No,
;.,iy. Fst.< <$yB \z+.<,, a .,$$$*; ". .a>3',$>q b,,bO '2k.8 ,.,, 4 d'" .$ic?;?
Rj -2 5Jg I I a ,I 3 14 + t.:s3&8i;g&zp*::$$:- &,;; + <~~~~~~~~~ . yzpF$p; && $ -6 ." a, 4 - %,.a2 .s*,$i2:2- a - 9s ?,* J i&%.akk; fi .$ *
$;; * 6~$mrfi43 , >8!g, +>tF.<. A%+. pa".. ;:*It . r $&; i.@ ----Respondents
C>?-F .%x%;&s;4T- g84 T~~ %d
gi $$ ,y$@%& f ';?g
I& "" j& 85 46 FE $cpc# :i s jd I% f#
For AppelIant(s) : M#% @&,f@dipta zi: ~~+,~~a
;sj "Z $n?j?$!% &z;$ ,# F,? 9%" ., ,
Fo r Res po n d en t N 0.3 &ti 5- P R , l" . '., i~!&J;z;$de . 9 . .. ' $ ' .k; s-#$ . ",. .j. " e .. 2L4X &?", 69 "T ' ..'\Z r.__- ! -a. , ,: ql;@ha.gd, i;:, * ,, . 2". -'% , -'$gg; 2.. - e+$;hf<LjrJ+,,llrf* J,.,, >$<,. t+ 2.b:'. c. %, , za,$jiiJ ..s. 4 , 4Y? ?::;$ & ; 'Z:t% * 3 @$&. j1& s! . J a i . n 1 .I*
' eAz?.,.q%b\7 ;<"
H 0 pqgPjEy~~~$$ i ,d~?2~~~7~~~,+~k . ,~~~~$&RB_I: :* -b,sl*i.i.. +.P+~ NA
&&&&;7gggg;4:3g:2$2iggi?

¶6

23/07/'20kS

¶7

: f

¶8

Appe1lan.t has filed this appeal, challen.ging the award dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶9

Learn,ed counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the disability certificate proved on record, appellant had suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 50.57OI0. The

¶10

(2 ,of 4)

¶11

[CMA- 1757/2018]

¶12

Tribunal has erred in taking the same as 4O0/0. Income of the appellant had also been taken by the Tribunal on a lower side. Hence, the amount of compensation granted .by the Tribunal was liable to be enhanced.

¶13

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

¶14

Appellant had filed fhe;p%claim p@titi,on under Section 166 of - L?"1& t , 6 " G G1 ,% :% I-$ a, L- .x?& % &**pJ%$ @% 'q$ ;>s" the Motor Vehiek &t,1988 seeking comp"ensati"qn on account of '%& -9 9% $-j. _f.f-=b_ 4* ,, $7 ,$& injuries sufhred by him in the motor-vehicle acci.derita.which had :-$ -$;z c" .i %d @%= ."-$.&,x. occurrea~d ".Y 10.01.2016. B :: &$. ."' ."

¶15

As per Exhibit-73 disabijr&ybcq ggficate (copy of the same has _@l%M&9_ el for the appellant ellant had suffered $&?J. permanent physical disgk: &A$* t of 50.57%. The said certificate hd: been issu ctors. Hence, there is

¶16

no reason to doubt the

¶17

said certificate.

¶18

Appellant was a e of accident. Hence, 2' r$y .' % ;, *1 gx $a.,f . . ,q,q~~.B3 the appropriate m &&l.pjle~+~$j Lkd: 3gT3z& 'the amount of compensation vis-5-vis ,per,m.a)?i~nk. d.is,a.bi1Pky suffered by him would % ~%t!if-("-sQ q *q iq

¶19

¶20

Although, it was the case of the appellant that he was earning Rs.30,000/per month but in the absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, income of the appellant is liable to be taken as Rs. 5,122/per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time.

¶21

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.5,122/- x

¶22

[CMA-1757/2018]-

¶23

(3 ,of 4)

¶24

12 x 18 x 50.57% = Rs.5,59,482/by way of compensation vis-5vis permanent disability suffered by him. 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 R~.2,23,792/-.

¶25

Admittedly, , sum total of the medial bills 'proved on record by

¶26

the app,ellant are to the tune of Rs.73 7341-.

¶27

, $, 7bi % " 3 84- 8 F ., rr p +'-. C" @ , , <. ;ii9. .?. !: ""$@ 2 f$ '&'A ;? &"'?ti@ f ;T Learned c$+"sl'~~*for the appellant has cibmitted that the a k p 4% ,,&@ 7 ify" appellant hZ3d'remained admitted in the hospitalgfbp 24 days. **_%T%e$2.:@ '5 C_** f. %./ &$,& $%$ p-& t. y r.\*- ?. : Hence,..-:a;pp'ellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 12,00@/~tpwards @

¶28

hospitalization expenses.

¶29

&*,; Yidda:iisiueL s ii ? .A V1
and the nature of

¶30

c~T injuries suffered by entitled to receive Rs. 1,50,000/of amenities of life.

¶31

Rs.20.0001,%%ya: .g.dxdt"" ,e&;tltled to receive, in all, 11-t ", W"%WY -+-ww Rs. 5, 2/+ Rs. I^{2;32;37;gg8?>3e-} 9 ,pqk4, -4-E ,Ri.fB934/- ..;<a + R~.12,000/- + Rs. 1,50,0~00/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs. 10,39,008/-. I

¶32

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 16.01.20'18, is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.10,39,008/by way of compensation instead of Rs.6,17,622/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain the same. It is furthgr drdered that the enhanced amount'of compensation be

¶33

invested 'in iied 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, Sawai Madhopur, 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, Sawai M!adhopur shall -$$,>$ F" , 4 -we @wd t-&-y < further apprise **t$~~~~~llhnt%rega!.dg~tha** amount which has ''-..i., ,pa& '*. .& I$+=\Z been granted 9gPim (-2- 1:."r% $& by way of enhancement ahdi21i;e fact that the " ,>& a, h ,: 5. & ,& A. shall be invested in Fixed eo8itecei~ts in %!p, I *&p"k, Bank for his benefit. I I+

Shri Thandi Ram Meena v. Mohammed Irshad Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Thandi Ram Meena v. Mohammed Irshad Khan 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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Prakash Kanwar

Ramesh Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Smt Leela Devi and Ors. Vs Mohd Yunus and Ors.

Sohan Lal Vs Narendra Alias Nariya and Ors.

Raju Soni Vs Jitendra Kumar Nainawat and Ors.

Mohan Lal Sharma Vs Ram Chandra and Ors.