Allowed

Hanuman S/O Sita Ram v. Rajak Khan S/O Gafoor Khan

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2023CMA/4805/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 99,200 to Rs. 3,13,735 in a motor accident case involving a 15-year-old minor with 30% disability, following Supreme Court guidelines on appropriate compensation.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to Rs. 3,13,735 awarded instead of Rs. 99,200; lump sum compensation enhanced based on Supreme Court guidelines.

Hanuman S/O Sita Ram Vs Rajak Khan S/O Gafoor Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:15422]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4805/2018

¶4

Hanuman S/o Sita Ram, Aged About 18 Years, R/o In Front Of Champa Bagh Bada Ramdwara Leelgaron Ki Bageechi Bundi Tehsil And District (Raj)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajak Khan S/o Gafoor Khan, R/o Dobda Kalan Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (Driver Pick Up No. Rj-20-Ga7827)

¶8

Rajendra Kumar S/o Moti Lal, R/o Village Morpa Tehsil Digod Distt. Kota (Raj) (Owner Pick Up No. Rj-20-Ga7827)

¶9

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Mekar Tower Road Nityanand Nagar Vaishali Jaipur (Raj) (Insurer Of Pick Up No. Rj-20-Ga-7827)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha for Insurance Company

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order

¶13

19/07/2023

¶14

1- vihykFkhZ }kjk ;g vihy /kkjk 173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e&1988 ds rgr U;k;ky; ikfjokfjd U;k;k/kh'k ,oa eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k cwanh ¼ftls vkxs ^vf/kdj.k* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k&232@2017 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 25-06-2018 ds fo#) izLrqr dh gSA

¶15

2- vihykFkhZ }kjk vf/kdj.k ds le{k] Lo;a ds eksVj nq?kZVuk esa vkgr gks tkus ds QyLo:i dqy 58]25]000@& #i;s Dyse izkIr djus gsrq Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;h FkhA vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr Dyse ;kfpdk esa ;kph dks dqy 99]200@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k e; C;kt 7 izfr’kr lkykuk dh

[2023:RJ-JP:15422]

[CMA-4805/2018]

(2 of 4)

nj ls fnyokbZ x;h gSA ftlls O;fFkr gksdj gLrxr vihy] vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA

¶20

3- nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk rdZ jgk fd vihykFkhZ ds iwjs 'kjhj esa 30 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk vkuk ik;k x;k gSA vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr 30 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk dks 17 izfr'kr ekuk tkdj {kfriwfrZ fu/kkZfjr dh gS tks lgh ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk fd vf/kdj.k }kjk 50 izfr'kr Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh vk; dh c<+ksrjh Hkh ugha dh x;h gSA vr% vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA

¶21

4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk chek dEiuh dh vksj ls vihykFkhZ ds mijksDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fd;s tkus rFkk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls lafLFkr dh x;h vihy dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA

¶22

5- nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA vihy i=koyh o vf/kdj.k ds vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 6- ;g vihy] vihykFkhZ us vf/kdj.k }kjk fnyokbZ x;h {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh gSA izR;FkhZx.k dh vksj ls vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA 7- gLrxr ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dks 15 o"kZ dh vk;q dk ckyd gksuk crk;k x;k gS rFkk Dyse ;kfpdk tfj;s izkdfrd laj{kd firk }kjk izLrqr dh x;h FkhA eksVjokgu nq?kZVuk esa pksVxzflr ckydksa dks ftuds 'kjhj ij LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk dkfjr gksuk ik;k tkrk gS] mDr ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d n"Vkar ekLVj efYydktqZu cuke fMfotuy eSustj] us'kuy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM o vU;] flfoy vihy uEcj&7139@2013 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&

¶23

"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

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:15422]

[CMA-4805/2018]

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."

¶28

8- gLrxr ekeys esa vihykFkhZ oDr ?kVuk 15 o"khZ; ckyd FkkA ftlds 'kjhj ij dkfjr pksVksa ds QyLo#i 30 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk gksuk ik;k gSA vr% ekLVj efYydktqZu cuke fMfotuy eSustj] us'kuy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM o vU; ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeys ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dks 30 izfr'kr LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk ds dkj.k 3]00]000@& #i;s dh jkf'k fnyok;k tkuk mfpr izdV gksrk gSA

¶29

9- vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks bZykt ds nkSjku nok vkfn ij [kpZ gqbZ jkf'k ds en vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;s x;s fcyksa ds vk/kkj ij 235@& #i;s dh jkf’k fnyokbZ x;h gS tks lgh gS] ftlesa ge dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha le>rs gSaA 10vf/kdj.k }kjk vihykFkhZ dks bZykt ds nkSjku fnukad 27-12-2014 ls 22-01-2015] dqy 27 fnol rd vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus ds en esa 13]500@& #i;s dh jkf'k fnyokbZ x;h gS tks lgh gS] ftlesa Hkh dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk ge mfpr ugha le>rs gSaA

¶30

11mijksDr foospu vuqlkj vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr dh x;h vihy dks vkaf’kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj fo}ku v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr iapkV ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZ@DysesaV dks 99]200@& :i;s fnyok;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ds LFkku ij 3]13]735@& :i;s dk iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZ }kjk iwoZ esa izkIr dh x;h jkf’k dks

¶31

(4 of 4) [CMA-4805/2018]

¶32

[2023:RJ-JP:15422]

¶33

iapkV jkf’k esa ls lek;ksftr fd;k tkdj 'ks"k jkf’k vihykFkhZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ik;k tkrk gSA

¶34

12mDr jkf'k ij ;kfpdk nk;j djus dh frfFk ls vihykFkhZx.k] 8 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSaA

¶35

13vkns’k dh izfr ds lkFk izdj.k dk vfHkys[k lacaf/kr vf/kdj.k dks ykSVk;k tkosA

¶36

14rnuqlkj ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA

¶37

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶38

LOKESH RAJ /99

Hanuman S/O Sita Ram v. Rajak Khan S/O Gafoor Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman S/O Sita Ram v. Rajak Khan S/O Gafoor Khan

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

Kamlesh and Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Smt Amita Vs Subhash Chand and Ors.

Ladu Singh and Ors. Vs Ratan Singh and Ors.

Dharmendra Singh S/O Shri Phool Singh, Vs Ninua Singh S/O Shri Hari Singh

Ravindra Kumar Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltdandors

Rammu Bai and Ors. Vs Akhtar Husain and Ors.