Dismissed

Sushila Meena W/O Shri Harkesh Meena v. Daulatram Choudhary S/O Shri Baluram Choudhary

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2022CMA/1102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three appeals filed by claimants seeking enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Upholding the Tribunal's findings, the Court affirmed that lack of documentary evidence precluded higher awards for permanent disability and income loss.

What did the court decide?

The appeals filed for enhancement of compensation were dismissed as the Tribunal's award was found just and proper.

Sushila Meena W/O Shri Harkesh Meena Vs Daulatram… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1089/2022

¶3

Harkesh Meena S/o Shri Basantaram Meena, R/o Pushkunj Society, Haarij, Police Station Haarij, District Paatan, North Gujarat.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Daulatram Choudhary S/o Shri Baluram Choudhary, R/o 153, Gabola Ki Dhani, Jebliyo Ka Baas, Mokhampura, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. (Vehicle Driver & Registered Owner Tractor No. RJ 14-RB-4126).

¶7

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., through Manager, Registered Office At Reman House, H.T. Parik Marg, 169, Bekbey Reclamation, Mumbai-400020, Jaipur Office- C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1102/2022

¶11

Sushila Meena W/o Shri Harkesh Meena, (Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation Of India) Aged About 41 Years, R/o Pushkunj Society, Haarij, Police Station Haarij, District Paatan, North Gujarat.

¶12

----Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

Daulatram Choudhary S/o Shri Baluram Choudhary, R/o 153, Gabola Ki Dhani, Jebliyo Ka Baas, Mokhampura, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. (Vehicle Driver & Registered Owner Tractor No. RJ 14-RB4126).

¶15

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager, Registered Office At Reman House, H.T. Parik Marg, 169, Bekbey Reclamation Mumbai-400020, Jaipur Office- C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1197/2022

¶18

Asmita Meena D/o Shri Harkesh Meena, (Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation Of India), Aged About 18 Years, R/o

¶19

(2 of 6)

¶20

[CMA-1089/2022]

¶21

Pushkunj Society, Haarij, Police Station Haarij, District Paatan, North Gujarat.

¶22

Versus

¶23

Daulatram Choudhary S/o Shri Baluram Choudhary, R/o 153, Gabola Ki Dhani, Jebliyo Ka Bass, Mokhampura, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. (Vehicle Driver and Registered Owner Tractor No. RJ 14-RB-4126).

¶24

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager, Registered Office At Reman House, H.T. Parik Marg, 169, Bekbey Reclamation, Mumbai-400020, Jaipur Office-C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶25

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees, Advocate

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶27

Judgment

¶28

22/08/2022

¶29

These three appeals have been filed by the appellantsclaimants (for short, ‘the claimants’) for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,953/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization in MAC Case No. 571/2017 (2045/2011) tilted Kumari Asmita Versus Daulat Ram Choudhary & Ors; Rs. 2,76,311/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization in MAC Case No. 572/2017 (2046/2011) tilted Smt. Sushila Meena Versus Daulat Ram Choudhary & Ors; and Rs. 24,939/- as compensation alongwith

¶30

(3 of 6)

¶31

[CMA-1089/2022]

¶32

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization in MAC Case No. 569/2017 (175/2016) tilted Harkesh Meena Versus Daulat Ram Choudhary & Ors.

¶33

Facts of the case are that on 11.6.2011, Asmita, Sushila Meena, Harkesh Meena and Ajay Meena were going in a Car from their residence at Patan Gujarat. The Car was being driven in its right side with controlled speed. At about 10.15 AM, a Tractor alongwith trolley, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came from opposite direction in wrong side and hit the car, as a result of which the claimants sustained injuries.

¶34

Three claim petitions were filed. Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 571/2017 (2045/2011) and 572/2017 (2046/2011) were filed by the claimants Asmita Meena and Sushila Meena respectively seeking compensation under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 readwith Rule 10 (2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, whereas Motor Accident Claim Case No. 569/2017 (175/2016) was filed by the claimant Harkesh Meena seeking compensation on account of loss of estate / property and other damages.

¶35

Written statement was filed. Necessary issues were framed and after hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid judgment and award dated 14.12.2021. Being dissatisfied with the same, aforesaid three appeals have been filed.

¶36

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has awarded a lesser amount of compensation. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified.

(4 of 6)

[CMA-1089/2022]

Heard. Considered.

So far as the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1197/2022 filed by

¶41

the appellant Asmita Meena is concerned, as per the averments in the claim petition, she was about 7 years of age at the time of accident. In the said accident, the claimant Asmita Meena was said to have suffered permanent disability in her left hand. The Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award dated 14.12.2021 noted that in order to prove the same, no documentary evidence or certificate of the Medical Board was produced which could establish that the appellant Asmita Meena sustained permanent disability in her left hand. Rather from Ex. 221, no fracture was found and the claimant Asmita Meena was found to have suffered only two simple injuries. In this view of the matter, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others {SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014 dated 31.10.2017}; the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5000/- for two simple injuries (Rs. 2500/- for each simple injury). The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3300/- for three days’ admission of the appellant Asmita Meena in the hospital (@ Rs. 1100/- per day) and nutritional diet, attendant etc; Rs. 2653/- towards medical bills; Rs. 3000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a just compensation of Rs. 15,953/- in favour of the appellant Asmita Meena alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

¶42

So far as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1102/2022 filed by the appellant Sushila Meena is concerned, the Tribunal noted that although she was said to be earning Rs. 6000/- per month by

¶43

(5 of 6)

¶44

[CMA-1089/2022]

¶45

tuition, but to prove the same no documentary evidence was produced. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the income of the appellant Sushila Meena, her income was assessed at Rs. 3510/- per month on the basis of minimum wages, as prevalent at the relevant point of time for unskilled labourers and for two months’ earning loss, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 7020/-. Further, the appellant Sushila Meena was said to be 31 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (Appeal No. 3483/2008; decided on 15.4.2009), the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 16. Although the appellant Sushila Meena was said to have suffered 21.50% permanent disability and that was not in relation to her whole body, despite that the Tribunal considered the same in relation to the whole body and calculated the amount thus:

¶46

3510 X 12 = Rs. 42,120 X 21.50 = 9056 X 16 = Rs. 1,44,896/-

¶47

In this view of the matter, total amount under the head of loss of income was arrived at Rs. 1,51,916/- (Rs. 1,44,896/- + Rs. 7020/-).

¶48

As per Operation Note (Ex.-17), the appellant Sushila Meena was operated twice on 11.6.201 and 15.6.2011 for fracture in neck and shoulder. In this view of the matter, the appellant Sushila Meena was awarded Rs. 10,000/- for two operations (@ Rs. 5000/- for each operation); pain and suffering etc. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 45,395/- under the head of medical bills and medical expenses incurred on treatment; Rs. 66,000/- (@ Rs. 1100/- for two months’ admission in the hospital) as also Rs. 3000/- under the head of loss of estate / property. Thus, the

¶49

(6 of 6)

¶50

[CMA-1089/2022]

¶51

Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 2,76,311/- as compensation in favour of appellant Sushila Meena.

¶52

With regard to Civil Misc. Appeal No.1089/2022 filed by Harkesh Meena is concerned, he was said to be working as Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not produce any leave certificate from his office. He was said to have lodged the report with regard to theft of mobile and purse, but copy of the First Information Report as also the investigation report were not placed on record. Since the appellant Harkesh Meena had already received a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- towards damage of the Car from the Insurance Co. concerned, therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not award any award of compensation under the head of loss of estate / property. However, keeping in view of the fact that the appellant himself was residing in Gujarat and his wife and daughter remained admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur and he might have visited Jaipur to take care of them, on the basis of tickets (Ex. 152 to Ex. 208), the Tribunal awarded Rs. 24,939/- as a compensation for travelling expenses.

¶53

The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are just and proper, with which I fully concur.

¶54

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in these appeals and the same being bereft of any merit are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly.

¶55

Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in each connected file.

¶56

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶57

DK/26-28

Sushila Meena W/O Shri Harkesh Meena v. Daulatram Choudhary S/O Shri Baluram Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Meena W/O Shri Harkesh Meena v. Daulatram Choudhary S/O Shri Baluram Choudhary

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

Raj Kumar Verma S/O Shri Jai Dev Verma Vs Shri Kajor Mal Dudiya the Registrar

Simran Deep Kaur Dhonkal Vs Vinita Shrivastava Secretary

Smt Sudha Rani Singhal W/O Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs R. Venteshkaran Principal Secretary Department of Elementary Education

Sunita D/O Chander Singh Vs Smt. Vinita Shrivastava

Smt. Gopi Devi W/O Late Shri Balulal Gurjar, Vs Shri Abhay Ku. Singh, Principle Secretary

Asmita Meena D/O Shri Harkesh Meena Vs Daulatram Choudhary S/O Shri Baluram Choudhary, R/O 153, Gabola Ki Dhani