Allowed

Mohan Lal Sharma v. Ram Chandra and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2018CMA/706/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal to enhance compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court considered medical evidence, permanent disability percentage, and hospitalisation costs, ultimately increasing the payable amount to be invested in a Fixed Deposit Receipt.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified to enhance compensation to Rs. 4,13,882/- to be invested in an F.D.R. at a nationalised bank.

Mohan Lal Sharma Vs Ram Chandra 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. 706/2018

¶3

Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramlal Sharma B/c Bagra Brahmin , R/o Village And Post Labana, Teh. Amer, Jaipur

¶4

Versus

¶5

I. Ramchandra S/o Shri Shimbhudayal Brahambatt , R/o Jogio Ka Mohalla, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur Driver Of The f!@ pPJ g;$ .fh

¶6

Vehicle TraksTkfgn. "?.. ,%a,@p.$ i ;, Noej A~ 'r , ., -? .p..-, RjL-~~-~a,~Ijl9-( n $?

¶7

2. ~ijendrak<k~har S/o Shri Ramchanara $rah_ambhatt , R/o Jogio ~a Mohalla, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur Owner Of The V@kicl'e Tracks Tufan No. Rj-32-Ta-1497 _Y_ a, &>' & 7-*- *

¶8

3. "dEited India Insurance Company Limited , ~egionsl. Office At Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur Insurer Fo The &.*ebb. r fid" Vehicle Tracks Tufan &.:~js3'2-~a-1497

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)

¶11

$%, p ; $ """l !! ! %+f' '& 5 41 ti j# j; HON'BLE :MRS&~ WSIE SABINA _""at a_ r"l$R" _%Tp&;_ F:p+&$ &g$~~ 3'&... dad&&gn*4$Lg@;ka=+ " ...... " >,$ , F&.' ' ';.$% "FB 7g#f " 2. y, g~~ePG$h",*.,li.r,. 4' : . . _%61_ :j+"%-?d r.'L1l _$.>z_ :$ r. nT 23/07/2018 I-$,$ L .5 3Lh&x,. $+;$$:; % @;, $'y $iF!g8@:$; ; * p?$3 s:: " fl;'; fJ dBC&.P;.% pL.;,,< -s$;~~~$*Ggiy2c, -%<.Q XI- ..25:.4rky . 1 .+ r; Appellant has filed thirs"a;p:pea!l**ehal[enging the award dated * = 6- $w.v "WTX -ri e-0 g -$*$ *eM-r; " - " : +.j <&j/$ 13.12.2017 passed bv!.tiig~~[rb;urial,-seekin~ enhancement of compensation amount.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that tile amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side and required enhancement.

¶13

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

¶14

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 1.11.2014.

¶15

Although, it was the case of the appellant that he was earning Rs. 9,000/per month but, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record in this regard income of the appellant was liab - per month in view d.. of the minimug wages fixed by the State at thewrelevant time. ? As p:gi2x.14 appellant had suffered permanent physical d~hAe4b disabilit\li"ito the extent of 29.33%. The said certificate has been issued by the Boa ason to doubt the genuineness of t the said certificate appellant had suffer

¶16

Appellant receive Rs . ay of compensation vis-a-vis permane d by him. Appellant would be further enti n of 40% of the said amount towards loss and the said amount

¶17

h: Learned counsel QCq&plf&~~~as submitted that the appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for16 days. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 8,0001- towards hospitalisation charges.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sum total of the medical bills available on record with regard to treatment undergone by the appellant are to the tune of Rs. 2,64,000/-. The said calculation has not been disputed by the

¶19

learned counsel for respondent No.3 during the course of arguments.

¶20

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs. 20,000/towards transportation expenses and special diet etc.

¶21

&* 9%. $ 4 4 p Thus, in all,ap~ell~~~,t:i woh,ld$e+~n1;'tled to receive Rs. .A %,. %s " "&" .n k* %> 2,76,725 + Rs. 1,90,690/- + Rs. 8,000/- + RL 2,64,000/- + Rs.

¶22

<t*(-.*% Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 13.12.2017 is modified to thE'?&f@@t r F" r,,..^' $ that the appellant would be . -. : ^ 9 .. ," b " & <.' $ ..$ ?:=; **_UP_** entitled to receive **jgs;~gp;g~~ifi4~~~J?~gel:n;s4E~d** of Rs. 4,13,882/gff+...ye. >& ~%y;@b%+,-% A .. * ' ec9->: < ,...- f; :* $$k;p;;:% ,,, = $.,.+. \ 51.:~ pi,%gr. . f~ awarded by the ribu~~$b~~~~p'.6fi4r$~~~~~~~@~~d **3$byr** 3s@ 8 ;;.*A K* %+that the enhanced %c'&.r,+tCp.~*..; &-a s.i-$ .j< s v %++ -, %fi< - amount of compensati~~~;bi@ese&, , a%" ',<,'.$+ .?F xed Deposit Receipts i ~~ with a nationalised Ban riod of three years and the interest accrued u it shall be paid to the appellant on Legal Services Authority, Jaipur in F.D.R. in the name of the Bank. The Secretary, District Legal Services District shall 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 F.D.R. in some nationalised bank for his benefit.

Mohan Lal Sharma v. Ram Chandra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Sharma v. Ram Chandra 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

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.

Shri Thandi Ram Meena Vs Mohammed Irshad Khan and Ors.

Raju Soni Vs Jitendra Kumar Nainawat and Ors.