Partly allowed

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Sharma and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2023CMA/1367/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court hearing dismissed the insurance company's appeal seeking dismissal of the claim and enhancement of compensation, as well as the claimant's appeal for enhancement. The court upheld the Tribunal's 50% disability assessment due to lack of expert testimony but awarded future prospects interest, medical expenses, and other heads of compensation, enhancing the total award to Rs. 19,39,41

What did the court decide?

The award of the Trial Court was modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 19,39,418/- to include future prospects and medical bills; Indian Insurance Company ordered to deposit enhanced amount with 7% i

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prakash Chand… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/007087]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3050/2017

¶4

Prakash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ramlal, R/o Village Rajpur Bada, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar Rajasthan Through Natural Guardian And His Wife Smt. Asha Devi W/o Prakash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ramlal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Rajpur Bada, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Raghuveer Sharma, R/o House No. 1/122, Daudpur Phatak, N.e.b. Alwar - Driver Vehicle Maruti Omni Van No. R.j.-02-U.a. 1563 (Deleted)

¶8

Rambabu Saini S/o Shri Arjun Sain, R/o House No. 2, Madari Ki Dhani, Village Dadhikar, Alwar - Owner Vehicle Maruti Omni Van No. R.j.-02-U.a. 1563

¶9

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Having Its Registered Office 19, Reliance Center, Walchand Heerachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai400001 - Insurer Of Vehicle Maruti Omni Van No. R.j.-02U.a. 1563

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1367/2017

¶13

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office At 19, Reliance Center, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 And Having Its Regional Office At C-Scheme, Man Upasana Tower, 6Th Floor, Sardar Patel Marg, Opposite To Hsbc Bank, Jaipur-302001, Jaipur- Through Its Constituent Attorney

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

Prakash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ramlal, R/o Village Rajpur Badaa, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, Through Natural Guardian Wife Smt. Aasha Devi W/o Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, By Caste Brahmin, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Rajpur Badaa, Tehsil Rajgarh District Alwar

¶17

Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Raghuveer Sharma,

(2 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/007087]

[CMA-3050/2017]

R/o House No. 1/122, Daudpur Phatak, N.e.b, Alwar Driver Vehicle Maruti Omni Van No. Rj-02-Ua-1563 (Deleted)

¶22

Rambabu Sain S/o Shri Arjun Sain, R/o House No. 2, Madari Ki Dhani, Village Dadhikar, Alwar Owner Vehicle Maruti Omni Van No. Rj-02-Ua-1563

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Adv. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3050/2017 Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1367/2017
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3050/2017
		Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Adv. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1367/2017 for respondent No.1. Mr. G. L. Sharma, Adv. on behalf of respondent No.2 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3050/2017 and respondent No.3 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1367/2017

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶26

Order

¶27

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 12.04.2023 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 19.04.2023

¶28

The aforesaid two appeals have arisen from a judgment and award dated 18.01.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Petition No.575/2014 titled as Prakash Chand Sharma Vs. Mahendra Kumar Sharma & Ors., whereby Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.16,29,465/- as a compensation in favour of the appellantclaimant in CMA No.3050/2017.

[2023/RJJP/007087]

[CMA-3050/2017]

(3 of 5)

CMA No.3050/2017 has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, whereas, CMA No.1367/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Tribunal on various grounds.

¶33

CMA No.3050/2017 -Learned counsel for the appellantclaimant submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly discarded 100% disability of injured Prakash Chand Sharma. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that during evidence, disability certificate Ex.16 was exhibited and it was proved by Dr. Mahesh Vashisth an orthopedic specialist. So, finding of the Tribunal regarding assessing the disability of the appellant-claimant to the extent of 50% be set aside and disability of injured be considered as 100%.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also submits that while deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal has not awarded the amount regarding future prospects of injured. Since, injured received 100% disability, he cannot move and he is dependant upon others. So, amount regarding future prospects be awarded.

¶35

CMA No.1367/2017 -Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that claimant had not produced neurosurgeon and treating doctor in evidence. So, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion regarding 50% disability of the injured. So, appeal of the claimant be dismissed.

¶36

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FIR of 11 days. Involvement of

¶37

(4 of 5) [CMA-3050/2017]

¶38

[2023/RJJP/007087]

¶39

vehicle is not proved. So, finding regarding accident and involvement of vehicle be set aside and claim petition be dismissed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that income of the claimant be assessed as notional income because claimant failed to prove his income. So, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be allowed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Jithendran Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.6494/2021 decided on 27.10.2021; (2) The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Vimla Devi & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4950/2012 decided on 06.05.2022 and (3) Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.735/2020 decided on 05.02.2020 .

¶42

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10383/2007) decided on 18.10.2010 .

¶43

I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties.

¶44

It is an admitted position that no neurosurgeon and treating doctor were produced by the claimant to prove 100% disability of claimant before the Tribunal. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that disability certificate Ex.16 was not duly proved by the claimant. So, the Tribunal rightly

(5 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/007087]

[CMA-3050/2017]

assessed the disability of the injured to the extent of 50%. It is also admitted position that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount regarding future prospects of the injured. So, in my considered opinion, claimant was below 50 years of age, claimant

¶49

is entitled to get 25% towards future prospects.

¶50

Net Annual Income of the claimant as per income tax returns	Rs.1,90,740/- X 50% = 95,370/- X 13 = 12,39,810/-
25% future prospects	Rs.12,39,810/- X 25 % = 3,09,952.5/- (Rounding off 3,09,953/-)
Reimbursement of Medical Bill and transportation	Rs.1,71,155/-
For admission in the Hospital for 37 days @ 500/- per day and attendant charges	Rs.18,500/-
For physical and mental agony, pain and loss of amenities	Rs.2,00,000/-
Grand Total	Rs.19,39,418/-

¶51

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is party allowed. The judgment and award dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation receivable by the claimant is Rs.19,39,418/-, instead of Rs.16,29,465/-, as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount alongwith the interest @ 7% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment with the Tribunal within two months from today.

¶52

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶53

Jatin /72-73

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Umar and Ors. Vs Mohd Rayees Khan and Ors.

Shabbir and Ors. Vs Mst Sita Bai and Ors.

Somnath Son of Shri Ghanshyam Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

The Oriental Insurance Company Vs Smt Sushila Devi and Ors.

Koshal Chouhan S/O Lt. Shri Harikishan Chouhan Vs Smt. Rukma Devi W/O Lt. Shri Harikishan Chouhan

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prakash Chand and Others