Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Banwari Lal v. Vivek Yadav S/O Ramvilas Yadav

Rajasthan HC25 Aug 2022CMA/1129/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, modifying the Tribunal's award. While rejecting the claimant's unproven income claim, the court upheld the total compensation including disability, hospitalization, and other expenses, calculating a revised total.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified to increase compensation to Rs. 3,88,498/- to be paid by respondents within two months.

Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Banwari Lal Vs Vivek Yadav S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1129/2021

¶3

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, aged about 34 years, R/o Ragaron Ka Mohalla, Gram Badijodi, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant-claimant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Vivek Yadav S/o Ramvilas Yadav, R/o Nagar Radhi, Post ?! 4 f,,-. .

¶7

Shahjahanpur. r$- '$3.~ ha&^& @istt.$Matnpuri, Uttar Pradesh. -- .ad &#'

¶8

(Driver Truck N'o. DL-01M-5681) %err d *-,

¶9

l-lario$~ohilla S/o Ummed Singh, R/O' ~:84,*~ali No. 2, Prem Nagar, Najafgarh, Thana Najafgarh, New Delhi-43.

¶10

"-Owner Truck No. DL-1M-5681) 4-

¶11

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager, Office 3rd Floor, A-13 & 37, Hanuman Nagar, Khati aipur Raj. 302005. (Beema Co 81. Validity Date 11.02.2015 ema Policy No.

¶12

ents/Non-claimants

¶13

31 1; it Pf 8%

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr: liar?? 1. -; F haf fan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chande'rdeep Singh Jodha, Advocate

¶15

25/08/2022

¶16

This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 02.03.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Shahpura, Jaipur, District Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal

¶17

awarded a sum of Rs. 2,46,444/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant (for short 'the claimant') submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation on lower side. As per the permanent disability certificate Ex.13, the claimant had suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 22.40% but the Tribunal has erred in /+. 7%) &""-. awarding lump su~~bunt;of"s. ,,\ L $.A 952.{0:00/-*as compensation. is b--J c z,-, %&*a% $>^k' ',# On the. &her hand, learned counsel for. v the .- respondent a,,.d.8. 5 ' 0.3-1nsit3nce Company has opposed the appeal %n‘d;supported -.+ % k$ " -2 the impuned judgment and award passed by the ~ribunal.

¶19

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for t~~~.pa:rtisa,n;d~~,p,erusedithe -. ,; % .a ~s*,~~ a'' material available * . .. % i "2 d , .* i i.. * on record.

¶20

The the claimant seeking compensation by him in a motor vehicle As per the had suffered '* . permanent physical disability to the extent of 22.40%. The case of the claimant was that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs. **;is2* *'" \ . I " ,: 15,000/- per month by while washing work but in order to prove the same, no cogent or reliable evidence was produced by him. In view of this, income of the claimant is liable to be assessed at Rs.5122/- per month on the basis of prevalent rate of minimum wages fixed by the State Government at the relevant time. Keeping in view the age of the claimant i.e. 30 years, multiplier of 17 would be applied to work out the compensation vis-a-vis permanent disability suffered by him. In this way, the

¶21

[CMA-1129/2021]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

compensation comes to Rs.2,34,055/- (5122x~2x17x22.40/100). In addition to the above, the amount df Rs. 84001- towards hospitalization, Rs.33491- towards loss of income, Rs. 150001expenses towards three operations, Rs.10,000/towards transportation charges, Rs. 92,6951towards medical bills awarded by the Tribunal and Rs. 25,0001- towards mental and physical agony are maintained. ~ ~ Thus, the total amount of - - im, 3ka p- ..$ Fa-., compensation receiw3b.g iis vB-s by- the claI'm'an4 brnes to Rs.3,88,498/--A * @+t. $#-. _cm_ %- (234055 + 8400 . . +"3349 -t 15000 + 10000 + 926:9Sj+ 25000).

¶24

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 02.03.2021 is modified to the extent that the i W iri "83 instead of Remaining terms and The nonclaimants petition till date of payment wlth the Tribunal within a period of two months from tod

¶25

-Jl- -',, ,..-, "." .a ... .-, (PRAKASH GUPTA),J
* 8.4 U. D'* . .41 - iZ "1
.r 6 3 b $9 c

Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Banwari Lal v. Vivek Yadav S/O Ramvilas Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Banwari Lal v. Vivek Yadav S/O Ramvilas Yadav

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

Nisha Verma D/O Late Shri Mool Chand Verma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Manju Preaveen W/O Late Shri Mohammad Tohid @ Shakeel Vs Jagseer Singh S/O Shri Jarnail Singh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rupanti Devi Wife of Shri Harban Singh

Roshan Sutliya W/O Late Shri Ranjeet Singh Vs Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.

Mohammed Fareed S/O Abdul Sattar, Vs Smt. Firoza Bano W/O Zahid Ali D/O Kayyum Ali

Hariom Son of Shri Chandan Singh, Vs United India Insurance Company Limited