Allowed

Sadhu Ram Meena v. Arjan Lal Jat and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2026CMA/2207/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a workmen's compensation award fixing compensation at Rs.4,25,649 with 12% interest. The High Court found the tribunal computed monthly income as Rs.3600/- despite itself recording Rs.300/- daily wages, an internally contradictory and perverse conclusion, and remanded the case for fresh determination of compensation after hearing both parties.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sadhu Ram Meena Vs Arjan Lal Jat and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:11812]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2207/2018

¶4

Sadhu Ram Meena S/o Shri Nartaram Meena, R/o Bhopala, Gadhbasti, Alwar Raj.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Arjan Lal Jat S/o Ramchandra Jat, R/o Dhani Baldev Wali, Ward No. 2, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur Raj. Owner Of Vehicle And Insurance Policy Holder Of Truck No. Rj-32-Ga-0954

¶8

H.d.f.c. Irgo General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office- Third Floor, Upasana Tower, C-Scheme, Jaipur Raj. Insurance Company Of Truck No. Rj-32-Ga-0954

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamal Kumar Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. with Mr. Prijwal Kumar, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

19/03/2026

¶14

vihykFkhZ&nkosnkj ¼vkxs ^^nkosnkj^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh vksj ls ;g vihy /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 t;iqj ftyk izFke] t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.N.F. No. 154/2012 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 28-12-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls nkosnkj dks izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 ds fu;kstudky esa nq?kZVukxzLr gksus ij dqy 4]25]649@&:i;s e; 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izfrdj fnyk;k x;k gSA

¶15

izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 fu;kstd ij uksfVl rkehy gksus gsrq i=koyh fu;r gS] ysfdu vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 ij ,d

[2026:RJ-JP:11812]

[CMA-2207/2018]

(2 of 3)

ckj mlds lxs HkkbZ o nwljh ckj Hkrhts ij uksfVl rkehy djok;s tk pqds gSa] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa rkehy i;kZIr gSA

¶20

fo}ku vf/koDrk nkosnkj rFkk izR;FkhZ la[;k&2 chek daiuh dh cgl lquh x;h ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶21

fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ@chek daiuh dk fuosnu gS fd nkosnkj dh vksj ls izfrdj jkf'k esa c<ksrjh gsrq ;g vihy izLrqr dh x;h gS] tks rF;ksa dk fo"k; gS] fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kku rFkk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA

¶22

blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk nkosnkj dk fuosnu gS fd vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ds ek/;e ls fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vihykFkhZ dk osru 300@&:i;s izfrfnu gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS] rn~uqlkj ekfld vk; 9]000@&:i;s gksrh gS tcfd izfrdj dh x.kuk 3600@&:i;s ekfld vk; gksuk ekurs gq, dh x;h gS] tks Li"Vr% lk{; o fu"d"kZ ds foijhr gS vkSj ;g fu"d"kZ euekuk] vuqfpr o ijolZ gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr gksuk crkrs gq, vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶23

vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ dk osru 300@&:i;s izfrfnu fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu vkxs 3600@&:i;s ekfld osru ekurs gq, izfrdj dh x.kuk dh x;h gS] tks ijLij fojks/kkHkklh gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij ikfjr fu.kZ; Li"Vr% euekuk o vuqfpr gS] vr% vikLr gksdj ekeyk iqu% fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA

¶24

mijksDr foospukuqlkj ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad 28-12-2017 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ekeyk fo}ku

[2026:RJ-JP:11812]

[CMA-2207/2018]

(3 of 3)

fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf"kr dj funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj izfrdj dh ek=k ds laca/k esa iqu% fof/k lEer vkns'k ikfjr djsA lHkh i{kksa dks fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k fnukad 28-04-2026 dks mifLFkr gksus gsrq ikcUn o lwfpr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶29

dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 28-04-2026 ls iwoZ fo}ku fopkj.k dk vfHkys[k ykSVk;k tkosA

¶30

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶31

Murari Lal Sharma /26

Sadhu Ram Meena v. Arjan Lal Jat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sadhu Ram Meena v. Arjan Lal Jat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Arora Vs M/S Ascon Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Naveen Saini S/O Shri Shankarlal Saini Vs Shankarlal Saini S/O Shri Shyamlal Saini

Bane Singh S/O Kishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan S/O Late Shri Radhey Vs Shanti Bai W/O Shri Laxminarayan

Union of India Vs Chandu Lal Alias Chandu Lal Mali

Bantu @ Gajendra Son of Autar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan