Allowed

Hukum Chand v. Up Road Transport Corp and Another

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2019CMA/1525/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.2,99,000 to Rs.8,33,800 awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for an 80% permanently disabled appellant, correcting the disability percentage and adding future prospects under National Insurance Company Limited principle.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded to Rupees 8,33,800/- along with interest at 6% per annum.

Hukum Chand Vs Up Road Transport Corp and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1525/2012

¶3

Hukum Chand S/o Kanhaiya Lal, By Caste Vaish, R/o Near Ram Krishna Mandir, Atalband, Bharatpur Raj.

¶4

Versus

¶5

I. Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Through Its Manager, Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporatj Idgah Depot, Agra U.p.

¶6

Rajjan Singh S/o Moti Singh, R/o Tehsil Road, Maniya, Distt. Dholpur Raj.

¶7

: For Appellant(s) Mr. Gaurav Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aashish Sharma

¶8

HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶9

Judqment

¶10

14/08/2019

¶11

Present misce[laneous appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 07.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Special Judge Dacoity Effected Area), Bharatpur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶12

Learned couns.el for the appellant has submitted that

¶13

the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. As per permanent disability certificate (Ex.43), the appellant-claimant had suffered 80% permanent disability. The Tribunal has erred in taking the same as 50%. Income of the appellant has also been taken by the Tribunal on the lower side. It

¶14

[CMA-1525/2012]

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

is submitted that no amount towards future prospects has been granted by the Tribunal. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the other heads is also inadequate and required to be enhanced.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the appeal.

¶18

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

¶19

The appellant Hukum Chand filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30.06.1998. - There is no dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing registration No.UP-80-9562 by its driver. The appeal is confined to quantum of compensation. It is revealed from the record that the Tribunal has taken the permanent physical disability suffered by the appellant as 5O0/0, whereas, as per permanent disability certificate(Ex.43) the appellant had suffered permanent phys.i.ca.1 disability to the extent - of 80%. There is no dispute that his ri.ght arm was amputed. Hence, permanent disability suffered by the appellant is assessed as 80%. In the present case, there is no dispute that the injured was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month. The appellant had suffered 80% permanent disability, therefore, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Qrs., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an addition of 40% of the

¶20

aforesaid income is to be added towards future pro.spects of the appellant. Thus, the monthly income of the appellant com.es to Rs.4200/-(3000+1200). Keeping in view the age of the appellant at the time of accident, multiplier of 15 would be applied to work out the compensation. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.6,04,800/(42OOxl2xl5x80/lO0). The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical. expenses (Rs.20000), W?h a fa FbJ^;L<..y j/ scr-.i for conveyance cha.@,eg rT ,:. 1f.Rs.4000-). :aQd: $3~ extra nourishment 8. y$ ~~$6 i[ 62% Yt. p~ L ,p, (Rs.5000) is gpihtained. The Tribunal has rinat*\awarded any a , "14%. . p -&$/p . y p: cmens$ti~~~ towaks pains and sufferings and losshofa;menities. ,&> G*s>.~ @>?3 $ '@,, . 2-? ," Ki%>, 3x&4, ..5+. Consider~ng the over all fa'cts and circumstances of thg'case and fl more particularly in vie& gffS the appellant had ffered permanent 8O0/0, the ap.pellant ould b e allowed 2,00,000/towards d loss of amenities. receivable by the ~800+20000+4000+

¶21

allowed. Impugned award dated 07.01.201~~~s~~~~j~~~d~~~~~~eextent that the amount " < 3 * %.& 1"[ 4 ?$ x: : .*.us 4'Ii of compensation receivable by the appellant is Rs.8,33,800/instead of Rs.2,99,000/as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation shall deposit the enhanced amount 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. It is ordered that the enhanced amount of the compensation shall be invested in fixed

¶22

[CMA-1525/2012]

¶23

(4 of 4)

¶24

deposit with a nationalised bank initially for a period of 2 years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the wellant on monthly basis.

¶25

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶26

Mohit Rohila 171

Hukum Chand v. Up Road Transport Corp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukum Chand v. Up Road Transport Corp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu and Ors. Vs Hanuman Thr Lrs and Ors.

Smt Guddi Devi Saini and Others Vs Bharat Lal and Another

Sushil Kumar Son of Shri Babulal Kurmi Patidar, Vs Govind Prabhakaran Son of K. Govindan Vishwakarma

Govind Ram Sharma Thr Lrs Vs Sardar Kuldeep Singh Thr Lrs and Ors.

Smt Kamla Devi and Others Vs Gajanand Sharma and Others

Icici Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pooja Sharma and Ors.