Partly allowed

Raj Singh Chauhan v. Balbir Singh and Others

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2019CMA/1325/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court of Rajasthan enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 2,12,000 to Rs. 2,62,000 due to permanent physical disability and shortening of the right leg sustained in a 2007 accident. The order also directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified to require payment of Rs. 2,62,000 instead of Rs. 2,12,000; Insurance Company to deposit enhanced amount with 6% interest within three months.

Raj Singh Chauhan Vs Balbir Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1325/2010

¶3

Raj Singh Chauhan son of Sh. Jagdish Singh Chouhan, by caste Rajput, aged about 47 years, resident of House No.1683, Jat ke Kua ka rasta, Bhinruji ki Gali, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur

¶4

Versus

¶5

Balveer Singh son of Sh. Jeet Singh, resident of Bijva, Tehsil 7: : ,q j; - P c Ramgarh, District bgq.64) 2 2 j-i k . . 3~~8. dy ,y yLl 2. Naseeb Shalr"mac,son of Sh. Devraj Sh&~a>~Reside.nt of %2.z& H. No..52, ~ub&@l\iaar, Gurgaon, (Haryana) (ohn$f) Q _,-3. elia.~~b weneral Insurance Company ~imiied. through i 1 ~ana~~@:'.eistered Office 19, Reliance ~entre;'"fialchand ,:-"% ~irachand Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai (Insurance omba")

¶6

r.@ -+%:a ;:.'.& " f i ----Respondents P-:1 -.. C -r 8. * 3 < t- , .. 2.2- .. %).$ **l~cb,-* *,"%-:Y $f."i. .. ,< .. 2" .. "j'.' . L... . ' , ' , ,# .EL -af 7Q. T .pc. a -' 'W ii r- x -, " .C * . "? Fo For Respond ent(s) r A p p el l a n t (s) &fig ?kki:;?~ . %,> ..i* .'it ,j% %?, ,s t - . :.? .,$&i.+ ** . * 3 - ?.$-. P fiFFvj&fl&@ji .?. ,r u.+ t,@&..+@@aq$vc 5 ,ias:3as&? ,? : , r-:e , i,;: rc-:,.:t : i.. I.$ ,;-:+ >:. /$g$arwa $,. ,,-,:, , . ,<:. **i** $ iX** -:$, 1 &> ?*.-". , ,4-,;.3!.. .<<, **-g$;3:c?r,;z*** ?>,+&<: ":.-. ,".: . ;g;j:; ;a-xr- < . . +" ,; ' ,?.. n $ **r;, ,2g,;r .s$,$.q~":** , L'-,,* i r G2$$.-?i * ?.., i$ 5~^, ip . t. , - HON'BLE MRWUSTZG;E P~KASH GUPTA 1; it., r,q g ci ;&d'~~:et .;' @":P . - tp<.{,** , , , i- ;k, ..$*?,,% ... **06/08/2019** .I **_.+,** ', .+ - .. % x-- 2 I This appe&l' :fbr:$en@;a.@@fie.$it- **t:*s:5sa7** -.>,, of compensation is %, i$f.;t4>j,/iP **%f$<<58i_** 2JSk -. _2<T*p~_ **_>~~~~~;sz+,_* :-I. &f+,., ..i-w&J&c+" J.~$~ig* !. directed against the jq&g:,wenk:$a: J$58Mard dated 25.01.2010 *&2&2.:,:.& >,.: + . >;&s*jx * ?. 'i passed by the Motor Ac@.@gaC(nC -,> .-.->$ .: .%a.X ;c:l%im, tz<; s i Tj~D,@nal, Jw 5 Jaipur City, Jaipur 4 (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,12,000/as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribuna'l committed an error in awarding lesser compensation, hence, the same is required to be enhanced suitably.

¶8

(2 of 3)

¶9

[CMA~1325/2010]

¶10

On the other h-and, learn.ed counsel for the respondent No.3-insurance company has opposed the appeal.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material avaiSable on record.

¶12

The claim-petition was filed by the appellant Raj Singh Chauhan seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained -." 7. '@*j #JJ ;; by him; in a motor--ve:,P,Ig .ac;csdentkb~# % -+ i.,7 Pc,ccurred on 10.2.2007. As per permafigment ., disability certificate EX.^), c tlp-ET?appellant . had 1;" 't&" /P 3 c"', suffered pprnanent physical disability to the extent+ pf.:32.39%. &<&> ,-A There is30 dispute that his right leg was shorten by on'e-and half inches. The Tribun the tune of Rs.65,000/towar sufferings. Considering the over f the case and more particularly in vi ent di.sability suffered by the appellan of compensation towards this head i.s liable to be enhanced from . Rs.65,000/to Rs has awarded compensation to the rds other heads which have not been ch:a~.Ig~~g~e~~~~-y ,eitber%qf the parties. Thus, the <;+ , . (+&$ ;.; ci --:.3;; cT::! 8 4 4 -6,j-u -y. ,J d appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.2,62,000/- (147000 + 115000) as compensation.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 25.01.2010 is modified to the extent that the ' compensation amount receivable by the appellant-claimant is Rs.2,62,000/instead of Rs.2,12,000/as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shdl deposit the enhanced amount

¶14

along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment with the Tribunal within a period of three months from today.

¶15

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶16

Mohit Rohila 134

Raj Singh Chauhan v. Balbir Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Singh Chauhan v. Balbir Singh and Others

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

Bajaj Allianz Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sheela Devi and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Manju Kanwar W/O Late Ranjeet Singh

Rekha Sharma D/O Shri Jai Prakash Bhinda W/O Shri Sandeep Kumar Shastri Vs Shri Sandeep Shastri S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Shastri

Guddi and Others Vs Mukesh Kumar and Others

Manish Kumar S/O Vishnu Kumar Choudhary Vs Nagar Palika Board through Chairman Nagar Palika Mukandgarh

Pappu Qureshi and Others Vs Shahabuddin and Others