Allowed

Paras Kumar Uaidya v. Mahesh Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2018CMA/2728/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court computed total compensation at Rs. 3,37,329 based on verified injury parameters, corrected income assessment, and additional heads of damages, ordering investment of the amount in a fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,37,329 to be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in a nationalized bank; interest to be paid to the appellant.

Paras Kumar Uaidya Vs Mahesh Kumar and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2728/2008

¶4

Paras Kumar Vaidya S/o Shri Ravindra Kumar Vaidya, B/c Brahmin, aged about 25 years, R/o Flat No.209, Mahima Harritage, Sector No.7, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Appellant/Claimant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mahesh Kumar S/o Srinarain Ram, R/o Village Dhoriwada, Nayalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶8

Raj Kumar Khandelwal S/o Siyasharan Khandelwal, R/o Plot No.80, Path No.3, Vijay Badi, Dher ka Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur.

¶9

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., having it’s Regional Office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur through Regional Manager.

¶10

----Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. G.S. Shekhawat

¶12

For Respondents : Mr. M.K. Goyal

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶14

Order

¶15

26/07/2018

¶16

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 12.03.2008 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 21.82%.

¶18

As per Exhibit-18, appellant was getting salary of Rs.6,897/- per month. Compensation amount granted by the Tribunal required enhancement.

¶19

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

¶20

(2 of 4 )

¶21

who had issued Exhibit-18, had not been examined before the Tribunal. Hence, no reliance could be placed on the said document.

¶22

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 27.04.2005.

¶23

As per Exhibit-17, appellant had suffered total permanent physical disability to the extent of 21.82%. The said certificate has been issued by the Board of Doctors and has been proved by AW-2 Dr. M.B. Qureshi.

¶24

With regard to the income of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Exhibit-18. A perusal of the said document reveals that the appellant was working with Facility Services Management and was earning Rs.6,897/- per month. However, the person who had issued the said certificate or any other employee from Facility Services Management has not been examined to prove the said certificate. The opposite side has been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the said witness with regard to the genuineness of the certificate Exhibit-18. Hence, no reliance can be placed to the Exhibit-18 to determine the income of the appellant.

¶25

Accident in the present case had occurred in the year 2005. Hence, the income of the appellant is liable to be taken as Rs.2,000/- per month in view of the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time.

¶26

(3 of 4 )

¶27

Appellant was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident. 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’.

¶28

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 18 x 21.82% = Rs.94,262/- by way of compensation vis-à-vis 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 Rs.37,704/-.

¶29

Admittedly, sum total of the medial bills available on record with regard to the treatment undergone by the appellant comes to Rs.12,363/-.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for about 46 days. Thus, appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.23,000/- towards hospitalization expenses.

¶31

As per Exhibit-17, appellant would have difficulty in his daily activities of life. Appellant would have difficulty in squatting, sitting cross-legged, running and walking for long distance. Appellant has also suffered shortening of right lower limb by 1¼”.

¶32

Keeping in view the age of the appellant and the nature of injuries suffered by him, appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.

¶33

(4 of 4 )

¶34

Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- towards transportation expenses and special diet etc.

¶35

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs.94,262/- + Rs.37,704/- + Rs.12,363/- + Rs.23,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.3,37,329/-.

¶36

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 12.03.2008, is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 3,37,329/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.1,15,098/- 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 Paras Kumar Vaidya 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 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.

¶37

(SABINA)J.

¶38

Mohita/4

Paras Kumar Uaidya v. Mahesh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Kumar Uaidya v. Mahesh Kumar 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

Smt Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs Bharat Kumar and Anr.

Girdharilal and Ors. Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Smt Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs Bharat Kumar and Anr.

Smt Rajiya Beebee and Ors. Vs Krishan and Ors.

Smt Santi Devi Meena and Ors. Vs Sitaram Kharwal and Ors.

Satish and Anr. Vs Om Prakash and Anr.