Partly allowed

Hukma Ram v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2023CMA/655/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur appellate Court partially allowed an appeal filed by the motor accident claimant against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, enhancing the compensation awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and attendant expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 83,500 to Rs. 1,35,000 with interest at 7.5% payable within two months of judgment receipt.

Hukma Ram Vs Jagdish Prasad and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41802]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 655/2002

¶4

Hukma Ram, S/o Virda Ramji by caste Patel age 28 years, R/o Plot No.4 Near Gehlot Tailors, Sangaria Fanta, Salawas Road, 220 KV, Basni Phase Second, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jagdish Prasad son of Gorkha Ram by caste Vishnoi, R/o Village Madia P.S. Nokha District Bikaner

¶8

Ram Chandra, S/o Bagara Ram by case Vishnoi, R/o village Joravarpura, Nokha, Bikaner.

¶9

National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate
	assisted by Mr. Vinay Soni
	Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Kaushik

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Judgment 02/12/2023

¶13

This appeal has been filed assailing the award dated 30.04.2002 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ist Jodhpur on the file of M.A.C. Case No. 331/1999 wherein and whereby the claim of the injured was partly allowed holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.83,500/- along with interest.

¶14

The present appeal is at the instance of claimants and they are preferred the present appeal aggrieved by meager fixation of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant.

¶15

In the present appeal, the main thrust of the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal below in spite of specific evidence to show that there is 15% permanent disability, failed to grant any

[2023:RJ-JD:41802]

[CMA-655/2002]

(2 of 4)

compensation towards loss of future earnings. According to him, when there is a disability of 15% of upper limb, the Tribunal ought to have granted appropriate compensation for loss of future earnings. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the Tribunal has awarded the amounts under the pain & suffering and loss of amenities very meager and when there is a disability of 15% of upper limb, it subjected the injured to great pain and suffering and also such injuries have impact on the residual life of the injured. These things were not considered by the Tribunal below.

¶20

The counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has justified the award of compensation under the award amount. According to him the claimants are not entitled for any amount under the loss of future earnings since the there is clear admission from the injured that in spite of such a disability he continued to got employed by the same employer with whom he was engaged prior to the accident and full wages have been paid monthly and when such evidence is there, it cannot be said that the injured has sustained any loss of earnings on account of the impact of the disability sustained by him. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered such aspect and rightly disallowed the claim under the loss of earnings. According to him, though the claimants have entitled for any loss of earnings, the Tribunal generously granted Rs. 25,000/- on account of disability which in fact should not have been granted.

¶21

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also contended that the amount awarded towards disability shall be adjusted towards the non-grant of any amount towards

[2023:RJ-JD:41802]

[CMA-655/2002]

(3 of 4)

attendant’s expenses, extra nourishment, transportation and the compensation granted under pain & suffering and loss of amenities which commensurate with the way of accident.

¶26

As seen from the impugned award the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that there is a clear admission from the injured that he continued to be engaged with the same employer subsequent to the accident and the salary certificate produced by him also clearly shows that the monthly salary was being paid without reducing such an amount on account of sufferings of disability by the injured. Though there is a limb disability of the injured and such a limb disability was not proved to have any impact of the earning disability of the injured. When there is no impact on the earning disability, the injured is not entitled for any amount under the future loss of earnings.

¶27

The Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering in the residual life, in addition to what is already granted i.e. Rs.25,000/- for pain and sufferings on account of the injuries. This Court feels that the amount granted towards pain and suffering is lower side. The appellant was under treatment for nearly 2 months. There is consequential limb disability of 15% and such injury must have caused great amount of pain and sufferings. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.5000/- is added. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- (25000 + 5000=Rs.30000/-) towards pain and sufferings.

¶28

The evidence on record shows that the injured was under treatment for two months and kept idle for further four months , in total six months, he was deprived of his regular duties, for which the appellant has already been granted compensation.

[2023:RJ-JD:41802]

[CMA-655/2002]

(4 of 4)

The amount granted towards loss of amenities for the residual life is meager one. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is added under this head. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.35000/- (25,000 + 10,000=Rs.35000) towards loss of amenities. The amounts already awarded shall be adjusted towards the amount awarded towards pain & suffering and loss of amenities.

¶33

The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards attendant expenses. The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.5000/- towards nourishing food, which according to this Court is meager. The injured suffered fracture of upper limb which is essential for discharge of daily duties and he must have suffered great pain and suffering for two months. This Court is inclined to increase the amount of Rs.5000/- to Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, attendant expenses and nourishing food.

¶34

In the result present appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.83,500/- to Rs. 1,35,000/- [amount already granted + Rs.5000 (for pain & suffering) + Rs.10,000 (loss of amenities) + Rs.15000/- (for transportation, attendant & nourishing food)]. The enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest @ 7.5%. The enhanced amount shall be deposited with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, on such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount.

¶35

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶36

4-poonamS/NK

Hukma Ram v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukma Ram v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors.

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

Shanta Devi Vs R.S.R.T.C.

Rajan and Ors. Vs Prahalad Singh

Madan Singh and Ors. Vs Babu Giri and Ors.

Smt.Patasi Vs Jaswant Singh

Deepar Ram and Anr. Vs Narayan Singh and Anr.

Khetaram Vs State