Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd vs Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/O Ishwar Lal

Rajasthan High Court

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd vs Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/O Ishwar Lal on 13 May, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:22309]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4624/2018

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Arihant Tower,
Ashok Marg, Near Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Having Its
Local Office At Office No. 2, Third Floor, C-99, Singhvi Upasana
Tower,     Shushash      Marg,        C-Scheme,           Jaipur    Through    Its
Constituted Attorney.
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
1.       Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/o Ishwar Lal, R/o Adarsh Nagar,
         Sector No. 1, Bayana, Teh. Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur,
         Presently Teacher Govt. Primary School Meghwal Basti
         Jhab, Teh. Sanchor, Distt. Jalore.
2.       Mohanlal S/o Shobharam, By Caste Gwariya, R/o Indra
         Colony, Sanchor, Distt. Jalore (Driver Of Tempo Three
         Wheler No. Rj-16-Pa-1498)
3.       Bhagirath S/o Asuram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Mooli, Post
         Jhav, Teh. Sanchor, Distt. Jalore. (Owner Of Tempo Three
         Wheeler No. Rj-16-Pa-1498)
                                                                  ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3251/2018 Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/o Ishwar Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Sector No. 1, Bayana, Tehsil Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur At Present Teacher Government Secondary School, Meghwal Basti, Jhaab, Tehsil Saanchor, Distt. Jalore

----Appellant Versus

1. Mohan Lal S/o Shobha Ram, R/o Indira Colony, Saanchor, Distt. Jalore (Driver - Tempo Three Wheeler No. Rj-16-Pa- 1498)

2. Bhagirath S/o Aasuram, R/o Mooli, Post Jhaav, Tehsil Sanchor, Distt. Jalore (Owner - Tempo Three Wheeler No. Rj-16-Pa-1498)

3. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Regional Office At Arihant Tower, Ashok Marg, Near Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Regional (Downloaded on 31/05/2024 at 08:51:19 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22309] (2 of 5) [CMA-4624/2018] Manager (Insurer - Tempo Three Wheeler No. Rj-16-Pa- 1498)

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. in CMA No. 4624/2018 Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. in CMA No. 3251/2018 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. in CMA No.4624/2018 Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. in CMA No.3251/2018 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/05/2024 The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ No. 1), Bayana (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.101/2011, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.4,71,362/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of re-institution of the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant (for short 'the claimant').

CMA No.4624/2018 has been filed by the HDFC General Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company') challenging the judgment & award dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds and CMA No.3251/2018 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4624/2018:- (Downloaded on 31/05/2024 at 08:51:19 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:22309] (3 of 5) [CMA-4624/2018] Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 3 in favour of the claimant, wrongly considered that Driver of the Tempo (three wheeler) possessed valid and effective licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. So, he was not entitled to drive the alleged Tempo involved in the accident. So, findings of the Tribunal is required to be modified accordingly. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering 10% permanent disability because claimant failed to prove that he sustained 10% loss due to the injuries sustained by him, which were assessed to be in relation to the whole body. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the claimant was 3rd Grade Govt. Teacher in Education Department. So, he did not suffer any loss of income on account of permanent disability. Learned counsel for Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has awarded excessive amount under various head which deserves to be reduced. So, award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly.

CMA No.3251/2018- Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered that the Driver-Mohan Lal was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Tempo (three wheeler) at the time of accident. So, he was entitled to drive the vehicle, the unladen weight of which is upto 7500Kg. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly considered 10% permanent disability whereas the claimant sustained 43% permanent disability. So, permanent disability of the claimant should be considered as 43%. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the Tribunal has not (Downloaded on 31/05/2024 at 08:51:19 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22309] (4 of 5) [CMA-4624/2018] awarded any amount towards future prospects. So, award and judgment passed by the Tribunal is require to be modified accordingly.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the claimant.

It is an admitted position that the Driver-Mohan Lal was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. As per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited" reported in MACD (3)(SC)74, the person who possesses the licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, can also drive the vehicle, the unladen weight of which is upto 7500Kg. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the Issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has committed an error in considering the loss due to the injuries sustained by the claimant which were assessed to be in relation to the whole body because claimant was 3 rd Grade Government Teacher in Education Department. Thus, on account of the said percentage of permanent disability, he has not suffered any loss of income. The claimant is also not entitled to get future prospects on account of permanent disability. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering, nutritional diet and future treatment. In my considered opinion, when the claimant took treatment for about 7 months he is entitled to get Rs. 2,92,992/- under the head of pain and suffering, nutritional diet as well as future treatment. So, appeal filed by the Insurance Company as well as claimant deserves to be partly allowed. (Downloaded on 31/05/2024 at 08:51:19 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:22309] (5 of 5) [CMA-4624/2018] So, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company as well as claimant are partly allowed. The claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,92,992/- under the head of pain and suffering, nutritional diet as well as future treatment instead of loss of income. The amount awarded under the other heads shall remain same. The impugned judgment and award stands modified as indicated above.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/102-103 (Downloaded on 31/05/2024 at 08:51:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)