Rajasthan High Court
Leelaram vs Deshraj And Ors on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
(1 of 4) [CMA-4615/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4615/2017
Leelaram S/o Shri Bhola Ram, aged 52 years, R/o Paniyala,
Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Deshraj S/o Shri Sultan Singh, R/o Village Gunti, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan Driver-Truck No.RJ-02-GA-
9087
2. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Deshraj, R/o Village Gunti, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan Owner-Truck No.RJ-02-GA-
9087
3. The New India Insurance Company Limited through Rigional
Manager Office Nehru Palace Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Insurance Company-Truck No.RJ-02-GA-9087, Incharge dated
04.09.2013 to 03.09.2014
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava
Mr. P.C.Yadav for Mr. Narpat Singh
Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yunus Khan
Mr. N.L. Verma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
09/12/2021
Instant appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 25.05.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kotputali, District Jaipur in Motor Accident Claims Case
No.297/2014 by which an award of Rs.9,16,875/- has been
passed.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
suffered 90% permanent disability and he is not able to discharge
(2 of 4) [CMA-4615/2017]
his daily routine activities. He submits that as per the disability
certificate Ex.P27 of the appellant he has suffered 90% permanent
disability and the disability certificate indicates that he requires
one attendant for his daily routine activities for rest of his life. He
further submits that while determining the compensation the
learned Tribunal has accessed his income on the basis of the
minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time i.e. Rs. 189 per
day. He further submits that while accessing the income total 26
days in a month has been taken into consideration while passing
the award. He further submits that as per the view taken by this
Court in the case of Jalaur Singh @ Dilawar Singh Vs. Barkat
reported in 2012(2) MACD Rajasthan 692, the Tribunal ought to
have considered the income of the injured for 30 days instead of
26 days. He further submits that while passing the impugned
award the Tribunal has not granted any amount of compensation
towards the loss of amenities of life and not a single penny has
been awarded for the attendant who is regularly attending the
injured. He further submits that another facts and circumstances
of the case, the impugned award needs suitable enhancement.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent No.3
opposed the appeal. Admittedly, the appellant has filed the claim
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation on account the injuries sustained by him in Motor
Vehicle Accident occurred in the night on 25.03.2014. Their
perusal of the disability certificate available on the record marked
as Ex.P27 clearly indicates that the appellant has sustained 90%
disability and as per the note indicated in the disability certificate,
the appellant requires one attendant for his entire life for
discharging his routine activities. Disability certificate has been
(3 of 4) [CMA-4615/2017]
issued by the Medical Board of three doctors of Community Health
Centre, Sanganer, Jaipur and there is no reason to disbelieve the
genuines of the certificate. The perusal of the said certificate
clearly indicates that the appellant is not in a position to perform
his daily routine activities and for that purpose he needs help of a
attendant for discharging the routine activities.
At the time of the accident the age of the appellant was 50
years. Looking to his age the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13.
Heard both the counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
As per the view taken by this Court in the case of Jalaur
Singh Vs. Barkat (supra), the Tribunal should have considered the
income/minimum wages of the appellant for 30 days instead of 26
days. So, herein in the instant case also the same analogy is
applicable and the appellant is entitled to get minimum wages for
30 days. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a
judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding
in SBCMA No.1948/2009 wherein the situation was almost
identical and keeping the age of the appellant therein and looking
to the disability suffered by him it was held by the Court that he
was entitled to get a sum of Rs.3 lakh towards loss of amenities in
life and he was held to be entitled to get a sum of Rs.2 lakh on
account of requirement of attendant. Thus, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, appellant is entitled to receive Rs.189
X 4 X 12 X 13 X 90% = Rs.1,06,142/- + Rs.3,00,000/- +
Rs.2,00,000/- = Rs.6,06,142/-.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The amount award dated
25.05.2017 stands modified to the extent that the appellant would
be entitled to receive Rs.6,06,142/- by way of compensation in
(4 of 4) [CMA-4615/2017]
addition to compensation of Rs.9,16,875/-. The remaining terms
and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged. It is further
ordered that out of the enhanced amount as a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- be deposited in saving bank account of the
appellant and remaining amount enhanced compensation be
invested in Fixed Deposit with any nationalized bank initially for a
period of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall
be paid to the appellant on monthly basis.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Arun/18
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
