Allowed

Laxminarayan v. Vikram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2019CMA/2387/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,03,546 to Rs. 3,42,978 based on a 24.28% disability. The enhanced sum must be invested in a fixed deposit by the District Legal Services Authority for the appellant's benefit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified to increase compensation to Rs. 3,42,978/-. The enhanced amount must be invested in a Fixed Deposit Receipt by the District Legal Services Authority in a nationalized ba

Laxminarayan Vs Vikram and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2387/2018

¶4

Laxminarayan S/o Hanuman Sahai B/c Swami, R/o Ward No. 5, Khatedi Mohalla, Shahpura, Teh. Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant/Claimant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vikram S/o Ratan Lal B/c Brahmin, R/o Gurunanak Mohalla, Khairthal, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan Driver

¶8

Jaywant Singh S/o Ram Prasad B/c Yadav, Tehdki Mundwar, Alwar, Rajasthan At Present Of Khurdi, Kotputli, Jaipur Rajasthan Owner

¶9

Ifko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Katewa Bhawan, Opp. Ganpati Plaza, M.i. Road, Jaipur Insurance Company

¶10

----Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma

¶12

For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Ritesh Jain

¶13

For Respondent no.1 : Mr. Lokesh Taylor

¶14

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment

¶15

08/04/2019

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the service qua respondent no.2 for the purposes of this appeal, be dispensed with.

¶17

Ordered accordingly.

¶18

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per Exhibit-12, appellant has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 24.28%. Hence, the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal required enhancement.

¶20

(2 of 3 )

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 & 3, have opposed the appeal.

¶22

Appellant had filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 22.06.2013.

¶23

Learned Tribunal after considering the material on record has taken the age of the appellant as 48 years. Thus, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of compensation would be ‘13’.

¶24

As per Exhibit-12 Disability Certificate (copy of the same has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments), appellant had suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 24.28%. It has been further observed by the medical Board of Doctors that the appellant would have difficulty in squatting, sitting, climbing stairs & walking.

¶25

As per Exhibit 15A (copy of the same has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments), driving licence of the appellant, he was authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Thus, appellant can be considered as a skilled worker. In the absence of any documentary evidence income of the appellant can be taken as Rs.4,836/- per month in view of minimum wages fixed by the State.

¶26

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs.4,836/x 12 x 13 x 24.28% = Rs.1,83,172/- by way of compensation visà-vis permanent disability suffered by him. Appellant would be further entitled to receive an addition of 25% of the said amount towards loss of his future prospects and the said amount comes to Rs.45,793/-. Appellant would be further entitled to receive, Rs.69,013/- towards medical expenses incurred by him on his

¶27

(3 of 3 )

¶28

treatment, proved on record. Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet etc.

¶29

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs.1,83,172/- + Rs.45,793/- + Rs.69,013/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.3,42,978/- by way of compensation.

¶30

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 17.02.2018, is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 3,42,978/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.2,03,546/- 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 Laxminarayan 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.

¶31

(SABINA)J.

¶32

Mohita/49

Laxminarayan v. Vikram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxminarayan v. Vikram 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

Ramchandra Vs Roshanlal and Ors.

Aarti W/O Late Shri Ravi Kumar Vs Manjeet Singh S/O Shri Mathura Singh

Rakesh Jhajharia S/O Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Chiraguddin Alias Chirag Qureshi Vs Dataram and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Anita Devi and Others

Roshan Lal Kamad Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.