Allowed

United India Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager v. Smt. Savitri Devi @ Sarswati W/O Late Shri Pitharam

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2024CMA/4369/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the additional compensation from Rs. 1,12,000 to Rs. 12,02,000 awarded by the Additional Consumer Forum to the appellants for negligence. The court directed the insurance company to pay the balance amount with future maintenance interest and dismissed the respondent's appeal.

What did the court decide?

Further enhancement of additional compensation to Rs. 12,02,000 approved; balance amount to be paid with 6% future maintenance interest; respondent's appeal dismissed.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional… — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:712]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5355/2018

¶4

Smt. Savitri Devi Alias Saraswati W/o Late Shri Pitharam, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Gram Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Raj)

¶5

Ku. Poonam Choudhary D/o Late Shri Pitharam, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gram Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Raj)

¶6

Nitin Choudhary S/o Late Shri Pitharam, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Gram Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Raj)

¶7

Vikas Choudhary S/o Late Shri Pitharam, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Gram Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Raj)

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ramlal Jat S/o Shri Suwalal Jat, R/o Tikabada Tehsil Kishangarh District Ajmer (Driver)

¶11

M/s Mukesh Kumar Radheshyam Goyal, R/o 4 Moolchand Marg Nimach And Arya Samaj Road Bhilwada (Owner)

¶12

United India Insurance Company Limited Thorugh Regional Manager, Sahara Chambers Tonk Road Jaipur (Insurance Company)

¶13

Poorna Ram Son Of Shri Kesharam, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Gram Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Raj)

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

Connected with

¶16

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4369/2018

¶17

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, M.i. Road Jaipur Having Its T.p. Hub Office 93 Sapphire Building Opposite E.s.i. Dispensary Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Constituted

[2024:RJ-JP:712]

(2 of 5)

[CMA-5355/2018]

Attornery

----Appellant

Versus

Smt. Savitri Devi @ Sarswati W/o Late Shri Pitharam, R/o Village Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶25

Kum Poonam Choudhary D/o Late Shri Pitharam, R/o Village Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶26

Nitin Choudhary S/o Late Shri Pitharam, R/o Village Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶27

Vikas Choudhry S/o Late Shri Pitahram, Claimant No. 2 To 4 Are Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Claimant No. 1

¶28

Purnaram S/o Shri Kesharam, B/c Jat R/o Village Swami Ki Dhani Tan Balara Post Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶29

Ram Lal Jat S/o Shri Suwa Lal Jat, Village Teekabada Tehsil Kishangarh District Ajmer

¶30

M/s Mukesh Kumar Radheyshyam Goyal, R/o 4 Moolchand Marg Neemach And Arya Samaj Road Bhilwara

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.N. Tiwari, Adv. For : Mr. Tripurari Sharma, Adv. Respondent(s) Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Adv.

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶34

Judgment / Order

¶35

05/01/2024

¶36

mijksDr nksuksa vihysa fo}ku eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa jktLFkku jkT; lgdkjh vf/kdj.k]

¶37

(3 of 5) [CMA-5355/2018]

¶38

[2024:RJ-JP:712]

¶39

t;iqj }kjk eksVj nq?kZVuk okn izdj.k la[;k 671@1997 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 16-07-2018 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gSaA ftlds ek/;e ls erd ihFkkjke dh okgu nq?kZVuk esa eR;q gksus ij dqy 11]12]000@& :i;s dh izfrdj jkf'k 6 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA

¶40

nkosnkjksa dh vksj ls izfrdj jkf'k esa c<ksrjh gsrq vihy la[;k 5355@2018 izLrqr dj lhfer fuosnu fd;k gS fd dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu ds en esa fnyk;h x;h jkf'k vi;kZIr gS rFkk laink dh gkfu ds en esa Hkh dksbZ jkf'k ugha fnyk;h x;h gS] vr% ;Fkksfpr izfrdj jkf'k c<k;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶41

blds foijhr vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh dh vksj ls vihyk/khu vokMZ dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd nq?kZVuk fnukad 25-01-97 dh gS] rRle; e`rd dk fu;fer jktdh; lsok esa fu;ksftr gksdj 5550@& :i;s izfrekg osru Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa fu/kkZfjr vk;dj dVkSrh fd;s tkus ds mijkUr gh izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk fd;k tkuk visf{kr Fkk] fdUrq vf/kdj.k }kjk nkosnkjksa ds i{k esa izfrdj jkf'k dk tks vokMZ ikfjr fd;k gS og vR;f/kd jkf'k dk gSA

¶42

nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds laca/k esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶43

ewy :i ls izfrdj jkf'k dh ek=k ds laca/k esa fookn gS] okgu Lokeh rFkk pkyd dh vksj ls dksbZ vihy is'k ugha gqbZ gSA vkjksfir okgu ls nq?kZVuk gksuk rFkk mlesa pkyd dh ykijokgh dk rF; Hkh fookfnr ugha gSA

¶44

(4 of 5) [CMA-5355/2018]

¶45

[2024:RJ-JP:712]

¶46

tgka rd fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh ds rdksaZ dk iz'u gS] erd dh okf"kZd vk; 66600@& :i;s Fkh] /kkjk 80lh vk;dj vf/kfu;e dk ykHk vkfn izkIr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr erd vYiosru Hkksxh deZpkjh gksdj ml ij dksbZ lkjoku vk;dj nkf;Ro ugha cu jgk Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k }kjk dh x;h gS] og iw.kZr% mfpr gS rFkk mlesa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha gSA

¶47

tgka rd nkosnkjku }kjk izLrqr rdksaZ dk iz'u gS] nq?kZVuk ds le; erd dh iRuh] rhu larku rFkk firk vFkkZr dqy 5 O;fDr;ksa dks dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu ds en esa 1]25]000@& :i;s fnyk;s x;s gSa] tcfd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n"VkUr Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanuram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj izR;sd nkosnkj dalksfVZ;e dh gkfu ds en esa pkyhl&pkyhl gtkj :i;s vFkkZr dqy 2]00]000@& :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa] bl izdkj bl en esa 75]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k c<ksrjh ;ksX; gSA

¶48

blds vfrfjDr fo}ku v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k }kjk laink dh gkfu ds en esa dksbZ jkf'k ugha fnyk;h gS] tcfd bl en esa 15]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k fnyk;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶49

bl izdkj v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k }kjk tks vokMZ ikfjr fd;k x;k gS mlesa dqy 90]000@& :i;s dh c<ksrjh fd;k tkuk mfpr gS ,oa fo}ku v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k }kjk tks 11]12]000@&:i;s dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;k x;k gS mlds

[CMA-5355/2018]

[2024:RJ-JP:712]

(5 of 5)

LFkku ij [email protected] 12]02]000@&:i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA

¶54

mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k 4369@2018 lkjghu gksus ls [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

¶55

vihykFkhZ&nkosnkjksa dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy la[;k 5355@2018 vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj vk{ksfir vokMZ dks mikUrfjr djrs gq, [email protected] ds i{k esa dqy 12]02]000@&:i;s dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA [email protected] }kjk iwoZ esa izkIr dh x;h jkf'k dks iapkV jkf'k esa ls lek;ksftr dh tkosxh rFkk c<h gqbZ jkf'k ij Dyse ;kfpdk is'k fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls olwyh rd 6 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls [email protected] dks fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS] iapkV dh 'ks"k 'krsZa ;Fkkor jgsaxhA

¶56

v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gS rks vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk ykSVk;k tkosA

¶57

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶58

Mittal /49 & 271

United India Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager v. Smt. Savitri Devi @ Sarswati W/O Late Shri Pitharam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager v. Smt. Savitri Devi @ Sarswati W/O Late Shri Pitharam

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

Shri Raj Mahajan and Ors. Vs Shri Mukesh Kumar and Anr.

Pappulal Vs Kanhiyalal and Others

Jitendra Singh Vs Shri Ram Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Parmanand Mali S/O Shri Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju @ Rajendra Son of Kalu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Dwarka Prasad Son of Shri Ramdev Kumawat Vs Smt. Nandu Wife of Kana