Partly allowed

Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani v. Ramswaroop Meena and Others

Rajasthan HC28 Jul 2023CMA/3849/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced compensation for loss of future earning by Rs. 1.50 lakhs due to 41.12% permanent disability, ordering the insurance company to deposit the amount with interest. The claim in other heads was not disturbed, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

A lump sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- granted under loss of future earning; appeal partly allowed and impugned judgment modified; respondent's appeal dismissed.

Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani Vs Ramswaroop Meena and… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:15698]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3849/2016

¶4

Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani S/o Shri Prabhat Alias Prabhunarayan, aged about 33 years, R/o Kareda Khurd, Teh. Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramswaroop Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Meena, By Caste Meena, R/o Vill. Sasedi, Police Station Karauli Sadar, Distt. Karauli. (Driver)

¶8

Ramsahai Gurjar S/o Shri Dharam Singh, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Gurjarpada, Vill. Sasedi, Police Station Karauli Sadar, Distt. Karauli. (Owner)

¶9

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. through REgional Manager, Regional Office, Makers Towers, Second Floor, Nityanand Nagar, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Insurance Company)

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3862/2016

¶13

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Having Its Regional Office At Sixth Floor, Maan Upasana Tower, Sardar Patel Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Constituent Attorney.

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani S/o Shri Prabhat Alias Prabhunarayan, By Caste Jat, R/o Kareda Khurd, Teh. Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.

¶17

Ramswaroop Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Meena, By Caste Meena, R/o Sasedi, Police Station Karauli Sadar, Distt. Karauli. Driver Of Truck No. Rj-34-Ga-0551

¶18

Ramsahai Gurjar S/o Shri Dharam Singh, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Gurjarpada, Vill. Sasedi, Police Station Karauli Sadar, Distt. Karauli. Registered Owner Of Truck No. Rj-34-Ga-0551

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

[2023:RJ-JP:15698]	(2 of 6) [CMA-3849/2016]
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma for claimants
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Virendra Agrawal for Insurance comp.

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶22

Judgment

¶23

28/07/2023

¶24

Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur Metro, therefore, same shall stand decided by this common judgment.

¶25

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3849/2016 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellantclaimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded vide Judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur Metro in M.A.C. Case No. 798/2013 (Sharwan Kumar @ Gyani vs. Ramswaroop Meena & ors.), whereby while partly allowing the claim petition, a sum of Rs. 8,31,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded in favour of the appellant-claimant on account of permanent disability sustained by him in a road accident which occurred on 04.03.2012. Aggrieved with the said judgment, respondent - Reliance General Insurance Company has also filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3862/2016 for quashing of the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2016.

¶26

Brief facts as they emerge are that on 04.03.2012, while the claimant - Shrawan along with one Ramprasad was going to his work place at Mansarovar, Jaipur on his motor-cycle, which was

(3 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JP:15698]

[CMA-3849/2016]

driven by Ramprasad in right direction at normal speed, nonclaimant No. 1, the driver of truck No. RJ-34-GA-0551 plying it at high speed, rash and negligently came from back side and hit the motor-cycle of the claimant at Shikarpura Circle, due to which they fell down and he sustained fracture in his left hand and other injuries, which resulted in 41.12% permanent disability and therefore, he claimed a total sum of Rs. 13,14,000/- as compensation under various heads along with interest from the non-claimants jointly and severally.

¶31

The tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the judgment dated 25.05.2016 and partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant awarding a total sum of Rs.8,31,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the appellant-claimant. Aggrieved by same, the appellantclaimant has preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3849/2016, whereas, respondent - Insurance company has filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3862/2016.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellantclaimant restricts his prayer to the extent of quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of future earning on account of permanent disability. He submits that in the accident, appellant-claimant sustained fracture of his left hand, on account of which, he remained hospitalized from 04.03.2012 to 29.03.2012 and underwent operation. He was advised for complete bed rest and thereafter also, he underwent continuous

[2023:RJ-JP:15698]

[CMA-3849/2016]

(4 of 6)

treatment after discharge from the hospital. The said injury resulted into 41.12% permanent disability to the appellantclaimant. The appellant-claimant was doing mason (centring) work but on account of permanent disability, his future income has been substantially affected. He contends that the learned tribunal, has thus, erred in awarding a meager sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation under the said head, therefore, he prays that suitable amount of compensation may be awarded under the above head.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company does not press the other grounds on merits except quantum of compensation and submits that the tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the appellant-claimant on the higher side. He, therefore, prays that amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal may be reduced. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed by the learned tribunal as also other relevant documents. 9. In the instant case, learned counsel for the parties during the arguments, have sought indulgence of this Court qua quantum of compensation. A perusal of Ex.15 - Discharge Ticket reveals that on account of fracture sustained by the appellant-claimant in the accident, he remained hospitalized from 04.03.2012 to 29.03.2012. In the claim petition as well as affidavit of the claimant filed in evidence, the appellant-claimant has specifically pleaded that on account of said injury, he undergone operation of his left hand and suffered permanent disability. After discharge

[2023:RJ-JP:15698]

[CMA-3849/2016]

(5 of 6)

from the hospital also, he underwent continuous treatment and was advised for complete bed rest. This fact is evident from the discharge ticket and medical prescription etc. As per the disability certificate (Ex.16), the appellant-claimant has sustained 41.12% permanent disability in relation to whole body, which was result of the injury sustained by him in the accident. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the respondent-insurance company. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, looking to the percentage of permanent disability sustained by the appellantclaimant, which is 41.12% in relation to whole body, the appellant-claimant will not be in a position to carry out his routine work as he was doing earlier, which will also affect his future earning.

¶43

In view of the above circumstances and looking to the evidence available on record and the nature of work of the appellant-claimant coupled with 41.12% permanent disability in relation to entire body suffered by the appellant-claimant and the fact that on account of permanent disability, possibility of affecting his future income cannot be ruled out, in the opinion of this Court, a lump sum amount under the head of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability is required to be enhanced, however, compensation awarded by the learned tribunal in other heads is just and proper, therefore, same does not require any interference.

¶44

Accordingly, the appellant-claimant is held entitled for a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head of loss of future earning on account of permanent disability. The compensation

[CMA-3849/2016]

[2023:RJ-JP:15698]

(6 of 6)

awarded by the learned tribunal in other heads is not disturbed. the respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit enhanced amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its Judgment dated 25.05.2016 within a period of eight weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual payment is made. The amount deposited by the respondent - Insurance Company shall be disbursed by the learned tribunal to the appellant-claimant in accordance with law. 12. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3849/2016 is partly allowed and the judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed by the learned tribunal stands modified to the above extent. The appeal filed by the respondent - Insurance Company i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3862/2016 stands dismissed accordingly.

¶49

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶50

KESHAV GHIYA /704

Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani v. Ramswaroop Meena and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani v. Ramswaroop Meena 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

Sarju Devi and Ors. Vs Mahesh Kr and Ors.

Regional Director and Ors. Vs M/S Popular Art Palace

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ishwar Lal and Others

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani and Others

Amar Chand Vs State

Brij Mohan and Others Vs State