Partly allowed

Mukesh Acharya v. Ganga Vishan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2019CMA/2691/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against inadequate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court, in a spirit of Lok Adalat, enhanced the award from Rs. 37,118 to Rs. 75,000 and directed the insurer to pay the additional amount within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 37,118 to Rs. 75,000. The insurer was directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 37,882 within four weeks.

Mukesh Acharya Vs Ganga Vishan and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2691/2011

¶3

Mukesh Acharya S/o Shri Omprakash Acharya, Age 37 years, R/o In front of Chamu House, Krishi Mandi Road, Jodhpur.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Ganga Vishan S/o Shri Mana Ram, R/o Village Nokhda Bhatiyan, P.S. Bhojasar, District Jodhpur.

¶6

Bhanwarlal Dhoot S/o Shri Jhoomarlal Dhoot, R/o Shravan Sadan, Behind Akashvani, Jatabas, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

¶7

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sharda For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Joshi

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶11

Order

¶12

03/01/2019

¶13

Appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) with a prayer for enhancement of compensation quantified and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur, vide its judgment and award dated 06.03.2010. Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating appellant’s claim under Section 166 of the Act, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.37,118/-with interest for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident which occurred on 14.02.2007. The accident was caused by Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No.RJ-19-UA-1084 which was insured with first respondent-Insurer.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CMA-2691/2011]

¶16

The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and even not satisfying the requirements of just and fair compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of the Act.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Insurer is prepared to settle the matter perpetually by enhancing the amount of compensation commensurating with the guidelines issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (for short, ‘Authority’).

¶18

While agreeing with the proposal of learned counsel for the Insurer and inspired by the spirit of Lok Adalat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also consented for deciding the matter in the spirit of Lok Adalat and enhance the amount of compensation in terms of guidelines issued by the Authority.

¶19

As agreed by learned counsel for the parties, the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal merits enhancement by Rs.37,882/-.

¶20

In view thereof, the impugned award is accordingly modified and total amount of compensation is redetermined and quantified to the tune of Rs.75,000/- including interest. The respondentInsurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.37,882/-, which is inclusive of interest, within a period of four weeks from today, or deposit the same with the learned Tribunal. In case, the enhanced amount of compensation is deposited with

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CMA-2691/2011]

¶23

the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal shall disburse the same to the appellant-claimant in accordance with law.

¶24

Before parting, it is made clear that in case the enhanced amount of compensation is not paid by the Insurer within four weeks, then, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal.

¶25

(P.K. LOHRA),J 50-T.Singh/-

Mukesh Acharya v. Ganga Vishan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Acharya v. Ganga Vishan 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

I.C.I.C.I.Lombard G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Smt.Meva Devi and Ors.

Mangi and Ors. Vs Nanda and Ors.

Bane @ Banne Singh Vs O.I.C. Ltd. and Ors.

Salim Vs Lrs Fatima

M/S Durga Cold Storage Vs Chairman, Jdvvnl and Anr.

Dine Khan Vs the Regional Forest Officer, Siwana