Partly allowed

Deependra Singh Rathore v. Shiv Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2023CMA/4078/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor vehicle accident claim appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award of Rs.1.25 lakh for an 18-year-old with 9% permanent disability. Relying on Master Mallikarjun, the court enhanced compensation to Rs.1.937 lakh, adding specific heads for disability, parental loss of earnings, and medical expenses, directing the insurer to pay with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,93,700; insurer directed to deposit amount with 8% interest from filing until payment.

Deependra Singh Rathore Vs Shiv Lal and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:28744]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4078/2017

¶4

Deependra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Jitendra Singh, R/o Village And Post Mayla, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer Raj. Presently R/o At Taron Ka Kheda Vijay Nagar, Tehsil Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer Raj.

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shiv Lal S/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, B/c Brahman, R/o Village Santhana, Bijay Nagar, Tehsil Bijay Nagar, P.s. Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer Raj. Driver Of Maruti Van No. Rj-06-Ua-7528, Engine No. F8Bin4565252, Chassis No. Ma3Ev811So1416881.

¶8

Sanwar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma, B/c Brahman, R/o Jalkheda, Tehsil Hurda, District Bhilwara Raj. Present R/o Santhana, Bijay Nagar, Tehsil Bijay Nagar, P.s. Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer Raj. Registered Owner Of Maruti Van No. Rj-06-Ua-7528, Engine No. F8Bin4565252, Chassis No. Ma3Ev811So1416881.

¶9

National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office At Jalwal Sadan, College Road, Beawar District Ajmer Raj. Having Its Regional Office At Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur. Insurer Of Maruti Van No. Rj06-Ua-7528, Engine No. F8Bin4565252, Chassis No. Ma3Ev811So1416881.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raaj Pal Choudhary

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order

¶13

11/10/2023

¶14

The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the judgment and award dated 17.04.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

[CMA-4078/2017]

[2023:RJ-JP:28744]

(2 of 5)

Beawar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.124/2016 whereby an amount of Rs.1,25,200/- has been awarded as compensation to the appellant-claimant-Deependra Singh Rathorefor the injuries sustained by him.

¶19

The claimant submitted a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.11,30,000/-. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant-appellant awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,200/- under various heads in favour of the claimant appellant.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured was 18 years of age at the time of accident. In the aforesaid accident the appellant has sustained 09% permanent disability, which is clear from the disability certificate (Ex.10), but the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.1,25,200/- only.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd. , reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396 has held that in case of children suffering permanent disability upto 10%, would be entitled to get a lump sum compensation to the extent of Rs.1 lac for such permanent disability.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, prays that re-computation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra).

[2023:RJ-JP:28744]

[CMA-4078/2017]

(3 of 5)

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimant-appellant has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the basis of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 17.04.2017 does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶27

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award dated 17.04.2017 as well as the material available on the record. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mater Mallikarjun (supra) has settled that in the case of children suffering from disability they would be entitled to get a lump sub compensation for such permanent disability. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads thus :

¶28

" 12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick ."

[2023:RJ-JP:28744]

[CMA-4078/2017]

(4 of 5)

Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,25,200/- under various heads including the loss of future income, nutrition diet and attendant, mental agony, expenses of medicines and transportation during the period of treatment, but no amount has been awarded under the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization. 10. Admittedly, the injured was 18 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has granted Rs.1,25,200/- for the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, which seems to be inadequate and needs suitable enhancement. In light of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra), as the claimant has suffered 09% permanent disability as per certificate (Ex.10) hence, he is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/-. Looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant and as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra), the appellant is also granted Rs.12,500/- under the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization for eight days. The appellant spent Rs.81,200/- as actual medical expenses during the period of hospitalization, which is also required to be granted to him.

¶33

So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:

¶34

1.	Pain and suffering already	Rs.1,00,000/-
	undergone and to be suffered in
	future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and
	discomforts, etc., and loss of
	amenities in life on account of
	permanent disability.

(5 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JP:28744]

[CMA-4078/2017]

2.	Discomfort, inconvenience loss of earnings to the par during the period hospitalization(8 days).	and ents of	Rs.12,500/-
3.	Medical expenses		Rs.81,200/-
4.	Total amount of compensation		Rs.1,93,700/-
5.	Less amount awarded by Tribunal	the	Rs.1,25,200/-
6.	Enhanced amount compensation	of	(Rs.1,93,700- Rs.1,25,200)= Rs.68,500/-

¶39

In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimant-appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,93,700/- as compensation. Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the same may be disbursed to the claimant. The enhanced amount shall carry 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

¶40

The other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment and award shall remain the same.

¶41

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶42

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶43

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶44

A. ARORA /-140

Deependra Singh Rathore v. Shiv Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deependra Singh Rathore v. Shiv Lal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalu Singh Vs Naina Devi

Smt. Ganga and Ors. Vs Bhola Ram and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs Santosh Bai and Ors.

Prem and Ors. Vs Islam and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Krishna Devi and Others

Brij Mohan and Ors. Vs Raj Kiran and Ors.