Partly allowed

Vishnu v. Omprakash and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Aug 2025CMA/5764/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a motor accident claim award. The court recomputed notional income at Rs.166 per day with a 40% addition for future prospects, holding income-loss compensation of Rs.2,05,908 enhanceable, but found no basis to enhance other heads.

What did the court decide?

Claimant entitled to additional Rs.2,01,908 over the Tribunal's award besides interest as awarded below; remaining terms of the impugned award maintained.

Vishnu Vs Omprakash and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:33959]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5764/2017

¶4

Vishnu S/o Ramavatar, R/o Niloj, Tehsil Basva Distt. Dausa

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Omprakash S/o Babu Lal, R/o Ahiron Ki Dhani, Tan Basva Tehsil Basva Distt. Dausa. Driver

¶8

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Through General Manager, Rsrtc, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. Owner Of Bus

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

¶12

Order

¶13

25/08/2025

¶14

vihykFkhZ fo".kq us ;g vihy varxZr /kkjk 173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e] 1988 ds varxZr fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] eksVj xkM+h nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] ckanhdqbZ ftyk nkSlk }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k& 08@2014 esa ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; fnukad 30-06-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 166 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e izR;FkhZx.k ds fo#) la;qDr o iFkd~&iFkd :i ls 2]12]644@& #i, rd Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh fnukad 03-09-2013 ls rkolwyh rd 6 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd nj ls C;kt fnyok, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA

¶15

vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g lhfer rdZ jgk gS fd bl izdj.k esa vihykFkhZ fnukad 17-01-2013 dks nq?kZVukxzLr gqvk vkSj mDr fnukad dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ekfld vk; 100@& #i, izfrfnu ds vk/kkj ij 3000@& #i, ekuh gS] tcfd ml le; izpfyr

[2025:RJ-JP:33959]

[CMA-5764/2017]

(2 of 5)

U;wure etnwjh nj ds vk/kkj ij 166@& #i, izfrfnu ds vk/kkj ij 30 fnu ds U;wure etnwjh ekuh pkfg, FkhA blds vfrfjDr vihykFkhZ ds Hkfo"; dh vk; dh {kfr ds :i esa 40 izfr'kr dh nj ls ykHk fnykuk pkfg, Fkk] tks ugha fnyk;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr dalksfVZ;e vkSj vU; enksa esa jkf'k ugha fnykbZ xbZ gS vkSj vihykFkhZ ds nq?kZVuk o {kfrxzLr gksus ij mls oSokfgd ijs'kkfu;ksa dk lkeuk djuk iM+k] mls ekufld nq[k o osnuk vkSj ihM+k gqbZ vkSj vko';d lq[k lqfo/kkvksa ls oafpr jgkA ,slh fLFkfr esa mls mDr en esa Hkh #i, fnyk, tkus pkfg,] tcfd ugha fnyk, x, gSaA

¶20

vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa Erudhaya Priya Versus State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812/2020 esa ikfjr dk vkns'k fnukad 27-07-2020 dh izfr izLrqr dhA

¶21

izR;FkhZx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd vihykFkhZ ds 'kjhj ij dqy 2 pksV Fkh] ftlesa ,d pksV esa ck;ha Vkax esa ÝsDpj Fkk vkSj ,d pksV lk/kkj.k FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr pksV dks nf"Vxr j[krs gq, mlds Hkfo"; esa oSokfgd thou ij dksbZ foijhr izHkko iM+k gks ;g Li"V ugha gSA mDr pksVksa ds nnZ o ihM+k ds en esa 30]500@& #i, fo}ku vf/kdj.k us fnyok, gSa] blesa of) fd, tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA vihykFkhZ 6 fnol vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus ds vk/kkj ij 1]000@& #i, izfrfnu ds fglkc ls 6]000@& #i, ifjp;kZ ij gq, O;; o ikSf"Vd vkgkj ds fnyok, gSaA esfMdy fcy ds vk/kkj ij 12]624@& #i, fnyok, gSaA blds 40 fnu dh iw.kZ vk; gkfu ds en esa Hkh 4]000@& #i, U;k;ky; ds }kjk fnyk, x, gSa] ;k=k O;; ds 2]000@& fnyok, gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa vU; en esa dksbZ jkf'k fnyk, tkus dk dksbZ U;k;ksfpr vk/kkj ugha gSaA vr% vihykFkhZ dh vihy vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tk,A

¶22

eSaus mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k vkSj izLrqr fofu'p; dk voyksdu fd;kA

[2025:RJ-JP:33959]

[CMA-5764/2017]

(3 of 5)

vihykFkhZ us Dyse ;kfpdk esa Lo;a dk v/;;u djus o df"k i'kqikyu dk O;olk; djuk crk;k gSA nq?kZVuk fnukad 17-01-2013 dks ?kfVr gqbZ gSA vf/klwpuk fnukad 29-08-2013 tks fnukad 01-01-2013 ls izHkko esa vk;k] mlesa vdq'ky deZdkj ds fy, 166@& #i, U;wure etnwjh ekuh x;h gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n"VkUr Laxmidhar Nayak & Ors. Vs. Jugal Kishore Behera & Ors. 2018 (1) SCC 746 rFkk Laxmi Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. 2008 12 SCC 165 esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj 30 fnu ds ikfjJfed njksa ds vuqlkj izfrdj dh x.kuk gksuk vko';d gSA ,sls esa 166@& :i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls 30 fnol dh etnwjh dh x.kuk dh tkos rks ;g 4980@& #i, izfrekg osru fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

¶27

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n"VkUr txnh'k cuke eksgu o vU; ¼2018½ 4 ,l-lh-lh- 571 eas ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk ds ekeys esa vk; gkfu dh x.kuk djrs le; Hkfo"; esa vk; of) dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA mijksDr U;kf;d n"VkUr ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ Hkfo"; esa vk; of) dk ykHk 40 izfr'kr dh nj ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

¶28

rn~uqlkj izfrdj dh x.kuk dh tkos rks rRle; vdq'ky Jfed dh U;wure etnwjh nj 166@& :i;s izfrfnu Fkh] vf/kdj.k us nq?kZVuk dh fnukad 17-01-2013 dks vkgr dh vk;q 15 ls 20 o"kZ ds e/; ekuh gS rFkk fpfdRldh; fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj mlds 'kjhj ij dqy 24 izfr'kr LFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk ekuh x;h gSA ,sls esa vk; gkfu dh x.kuk dh tkos rks ;g 166x30x12x18x24%=2,58,163@& :i;s gksrh gS] ftlesa Hkfo"; esa vk; o`f) dk ykHk 40 izfr'kr dh nj ls 1]03]265@& :i;s gksrk gS] ftls tksM+s tkus ij ;g jkf'k dqy 3]61]428@& :i;s gksrh gS] tcfd vf/kdj.k }kjk bl en esa dsoy 1]55]520@& :i;s fnyk;s x;s gSaA vr% vk; gkfu ds en esa 2]05]908@& :i;s c<+ksrjh ;ksX; gSaA

[2025:RJ-JP:33959]

[CMA-5764/2017]

(4 of 5)

Erudhaya Priya Versus State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812/2020 esa ikfjr dk vkns'k fnukad 27-07-2020 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us oSokfgd nf"V ls gqbZ {kfr dh en esa o ekufld ijs'kkuh gksus o lqfo/kkvksa dh {kfr dh en esa o d"V vkSj nnZ dh en esa jkf'k fnyk, tkus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA bl izdj.k esa vihykFkhZ ds dsoy ek= nks pksVsa vkbZ gSa vkSj ,d pksV vfLFkHkax dh vk;h gS vkSj nwljh pksV lk/kkj.k izdfr dh gSA nksuksa pksV 'kjhj ds ftl Hkkx ij vkbZ gSa] ml Hkkx ij vkbZ pksVksa dks nf"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd vihykFkhZ dk fookg gksus esa vihykFkhZ dks dksbZ ijs'kkuh dk lkeuk djuk iM+k gksA vihykFkhZ ih-MCY;w- 1 fo".kq ds :i esa ijhf{kr gqvk gS] mlus vius c;ku esa Hkh bl rF; dks ugha crk;k gS fd mlds nq?kZVuk ds QyLo:i vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k ls oSokfgd nkf;Roksa dk lgh fuoZgu ugha dj ik;k gks ;k mldk fookg gksus esa dfBukb;ka vkbZ gks] ,slh fLFkfr esa bl en esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ jkf'k fnyk, tkus dk U;k;laxr mfpr vk/kkj ugha gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZ dks nq?kZVuk ds QyLo:i vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k ls nnZ o ihM+k ds en esa 32]500@& #i, fnyk, gSa] ftlesa of) fd, tkus dk dksbZ U;k;laxr mfpr vk/kkj ugha gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZ ds Ng fnol vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus ds vk/kkj ij 1]000@& #i, izfrfnu ds fglkc ls 6]000@& #i, ifjpkydksa ij gq, O;; o ikSf"Vd vkgkj ds fnyok, gSa] blesa Hkh of) fd, tkus dk dksbZ U;k;laxr mfpr vk/kkj ugha gSA bykt ds fcy okmpjksa ds vk/kkj ij 12]624@& #i, fo}ku vf/kdj.k us fnyok, gSa] og Hkh mfpr gSA vihykFkhZ dks Hkfo"; dh vk; esa Hkkoh {kfr dks nf"Vxr j[krs gq, izfrdj jkf'k fnykbZ xbZ gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZ dks 40 fnu dh iw.kZ vk; dh gkfu ds :i esa 4]000@& #i, fnyok, gSa] og U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA mDr jkf'k dks dqy ns; izfrdj jkf'k esa de fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

¶33

(5 of 5) [CMA-5764/2017]

¶34

[2025:RJ-JP:33959]

¶35

bl izdkj v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k }kjk tks izfrdj jkf'k fnyk;h x;h gS] mlesa c<ksrjh djrs gq, vihykFkhZ@vkgr dqy 2]01]908@& :i;s vfrfjDr :i ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

¶36

mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vokMZ o fu.kZ; fnukafdr 30-06-2017 dks mikUrfjr djrs gq, vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vokMZ jkf'k ds vfrfjDr bl vkns'k ds rgr vihykFkhZ 2]01]908@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk] vk{ksfir vokMZ dh 'ks"k 'krsZa ;Fkkor jgsaxhA

¶37

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

¶38

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

¶39

KISHAN SONI /43

Vishnu v. Omprakash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu v. Omprakash and Anr.

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

Anil Kumar Goyal Vs Chatar Singh and Ors.

Kamruddin Mehrat and Another Vs Shahzad and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamruddin Mehrat and Others

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tejpal S/O Hanumanaram and Another

Pappu Singh Vs Prem Singh and Ors.

Murlidhar Vs Managing Director, R S R T C J