Partly allowed

Chaju Ram Meena v. Virendra Singh and Others

Rajasthan HC13 Jan 2021CMA/1515/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation case, the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, partly allowed the appellant's appeal against the Claims Tribunal's award. The Court set aside the finding of contributory negligence due to insufficient evidence imposed by the Insurance Company and directed the Tribunal to pay an additional Rs. 1,75,000/- to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The Claimant/Appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

Chaju Ram Meena Vs Virendra Singh and Others — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1515/2011

¶3

Chaju Ram Meena s/o Bhagwan Sahai Meena, aged 35 years, by Caste Meena, Resident of Village Ghatwadi, Near Punjab National Bank, Tehsil Jamvaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur

¶4

----Claimant/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Virendra Singh s/o Sajjan Singh Rathore, Resident of 221, Paschim Vihar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Driver Vehicle Gypsy No. DL2C-3512)

¶7

Sajjan Singh Rathore Son of Jai Singh, Resident of RZ/2048/27, Tuglagabad Extension, New Delhi (Owner Vehicle Gypsy No. DL-2C-3512)

¶8

United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Insurance Company Vehicle Gypsy No. DL-2C-3512)

¶9

----Non-claimants-Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain and Mrs. Arti Goyal on behalf of Mr. Gaurav Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Archana Mantri

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶12

Judgment

¶13

13/01/2021

¶14

Challenge in the present misc. appeal filed by the claimant/appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been made to the Judgment and Award dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.07, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal), whereby the Claims Tribunal in total awarded Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation along-with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimant/appellant.

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CMA-1515/2011]

¶17

Facts of the case in nutshell are that the claimant /appellant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal mainly mentioning therein that when the claimant was riding on his motor cycle, suddenly driver of offending vehicle Gypsy No.DL-2C-3512 drove its vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the claimant appellant, as a result of which he (claimant/appellant) sustained serious injuries on his body. At the time of alleged accident he was 30 years of age and was doing the job of cutting and polishing jewelery and from that he used to earn RS. 6500/- p.m.

¶18

On behalf of non-claimant / respondent No.1, Vakalatnama was filed but no reply was submitted on his behalf. Ex-parte proceeding was initiated against non-claimant/ respondent No.2. Non-claimant /respondent No.3- Insurance Company filed written statement of denial mainly mentioning therein that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and also the claimant /appellant was under the influence of liquor while riding the motor cycle. Hence, the claimant/ appellant himself was negligent for causing the incident.

¶19

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed five issues. The claimant /appellant in support of the claim petition petition adduced oral and documentary evidence but neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was produced by the non-claimants /respondents.

¶20

The Claims Tribunal regarding injuries sustained by the claimant /appellant in the alleged accident came to the conclusion that the Medical Board Certificate issued by the SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur (Ex.17) reveals that the claimant /appellant sustained 18-20% permanent disability and taking note

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CMA-1515/2011]

¶23

of the age of the claimant /appellant, the Claims Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,26,800/- in addition to the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in other heads. Thus, the Claims Tribunal in lump-sum awarded total Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant /appellant.

¶24

So far as amount of quantum of compensation is concerned, counsel appearing for the respective parties do not challenge the impugned award but the counsel appearing for the claimant /appellant challenges the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding contributory negligence. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record which establish the contributory negligence. Neither the Claims Tribunal has discussed the site map of the accident nor any independent witness of the accident has been produced before the Claims Tribunal and the finding of contributory negligence is based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, the finding of contributory negligence may be set aside.

¶25

On perusal of the record, it reveals that neither the Claims Tribunal has discussed the site map of the accident nor any independent witness of the accident has been produced before the Claims Tribunal. The respondent No.3- Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden regarding objection of contributory negligence. Thus, the finding of the Claims Tribunal to the extent of contributory negligence is set aside. The Claims Tribunal wrongly deducted Rs.50% amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,75,000/- from the total amount of compensation. Thus, the claimant /appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation in addition to the awarded amount of compensation

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CMA-1515/2011]

¶28

along-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶29

The misc. appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.

¶30

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶31

Sharma NK/83

Chaju Ram Meena v. Virendra Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaju Ram Meena v. Virendra Singh and Others

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

Sodan S/O Shankerlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mosim Manihar S/O Safi Mohammad Manihar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mosim Manihar S/O Safi Mohammad Manihar Vs State of Raj.

Ram Niwas Son of Shri Chuni Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Bairwa and Another Vs Dharmveer Sharma and Others

Smt. Sonal Agrawal W/O Late Shri Amit Agarwal Vs Namita Somani D/O Shri Radheyshyam Somani