Allowed

Kalu Ram Meena S/O Shri Rang Lal v. Salim Khan S/O Shri Gulsher

Rajasthan HC16 Apr 2019CMA/3439/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Based on 34.38% disability, the compensation was increased from Rs. 1,37,000 to Rs. 4,60,319, covering permanent disability, future prospects, hospitalization, and other expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,60,319. Enhanced amount invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts at a Nationalized Bank with monthly interest paid to appellant.

Kalu Ram Meena S/O Shri Rang Lal Vs Salim Khan S/O Shri… — Medical Negligence | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3439/2018

¶3

Kalu Ram Meena, S/o Shri Rang Lal, Aged about 47 years, B/c Meena, R/o Village Gudadiya, Talab Ganv, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.

¶4

----Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Saleem Khan, S/o Shri Gulsher, B/c Musalman, aged about 40 years, R/o Mohalla Nagoriyian, Ward No. 8, Kasba Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Chetanjeet Singh S/o Not Known, R/o - Village Bavda, Bakipur, Tehsil - Farukh Nagar, District Gurgaon (Haryana) (Vehicle Owner During Accident Car No.hr-26-Az-0693)

¶8

Pravind S/o Shri Rajpal, R/o - Village - Gurawara, Tehsil And District - Rewari (Haryana) (Vehicle Agreement Owner During Accident Car No.hr-26-Az-0693)

¶9

Shahrukh Khan S/o Shri Chhotu Khan, Caste - Musalman, R/o - Shitla Mata, Ward No.25, Tehsil Chaksu, District - Jaipur (Raj.) (Agreement Owner Section -133 M.v. ActVehicle Car No.hr-26-Az-0693)

¶10

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Opp. Uco Bank Branch, Hospital Road, Chaksu, District - Jaipur (Raj.) (Vehicle Insurance Company During Accident Car No.hr-26-Az-0693) Policy No.141382/31/14/01/00001156 (Validity Period From Date 28.06.2014 To 27.06.2015)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Manish Parashar

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Judgment

16/04/2019

(2 of 4)

[CMA-3439/2018]

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 34.38%. However, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side and required to be enhanced.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has opposed the appeal.

¶21

Appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 23.11.2014.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the claim petition filed by the appellant, he had pleaded that he was aged about 44 years. Hence, the age of the appellant is taken as 44 years, at the time of accident.

¶23

As per exhibit-21, disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Doctors. Appellant has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 34.38%. It has been further observed by the Medical Board of Doctors that the appellant would have difficulty in walking and would be unable to sit cross-leg or in a squatting position and would have difficulty in climbing stairs. The said certificate has been issued by the Medical Board of Doctors and there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the same.

¶24

Keeping in view the age of the appellant, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of compensation would be ‘14’.

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CMA-3439/2018]

¶27

In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the income of the appellant, the same is taken as Rs. 4,914/- per month, in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State, at the relevant time.

¶28

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 4,914/x 12 x 14 x 34.38% = Rs.2,83,824/- 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. 70,956/-.

¶29

Learned counsel has for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for 25 days. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to receive Rs. 12,500/towards hospitalisaton expenses. Learned counsel has further submitted that the sum total of the medical bills proved on record is to the tune of Rs. 23,039/-. The said calculation has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Hence, appellant would be entitled to receive the said amount with regard to the expenses incurred by him on his treatment undergone by him. Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/towards transportation expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet etc. Appellant would be further entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering.

¶30

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs. 2,83,824/- + Rs. 70,956/- + Rs. 12,500/- + Rs. 23,039/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- = Rs. 4,60,319/-.

¶31

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 13.03.2018 is modified to the extent that the appellant would be

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CMA-3439/2018]

¶34

entitled to receive Rs. 4,60,319/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 1,37,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged. It is further ordered that the enhanced amount of compensation of the appellant 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 on monthly basis. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur 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, shall further apprise the appellant with regard to 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.

¶35

(SABINA) J.

¶36

Sudha/19

Kalu Ram Meena S/O Shri Rang Lal v. Salim Khan S/O Shri Gulsher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalu Ram Meena S/O Shri Rang Lal v. Salim Khan S/O Shri Gulsher

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jawahar Singh

U P S R T C through Manager Vs Suresh Chand Maheshwari and Others

Smt. Sarla Devi and Others. Vs Neeraj Singh and Ors.

Sharwan Kumar and Anr. Vs Smt Ranjana Kothari and Ors.

Raj Housing Board Jaipur Vs Sita Ram and Ors.

Smt Guljar Devi and Ors. Vs Kilash Chande Prajapat and Ors.