The New India Assurance Company ... vs Sohan Lal And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3053 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1254/2005

Sohanlal S/o Hira Ram, b/c. Meghwal, Age-22 years, R/o. Sarvari Purohitan, Tehsil-Pachpadra, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. Kishna Ram S/o Choga Ji, b/c. Vishnoi, R/o. Cheri, P.S. Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

2. Bija Ram S/o Laxman Ram Ji, b/c Choudhary, R/o-Lordi Panditji, P.H. Dangiawas, Tehsil Mandor, Distt. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

3. Mala Ram S/o Pokar Ram Ji, b/c Choudhary, R/o-Ajiwal, Gehlotan, P.H. Dangiawas, Tehsil-Mandor, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office- Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1055/2005 The New India Assurance Company Limited, through Divisional Office-465, 6th Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Shri Sohanlal son of Shri Heera Ram, by caste Meghwal, R/o. Village Sarvadi, Purohitan, Tehsil Panchpadra, District Barmer.

2. Shri Kishna Ram S/o Choga Ji, b/c. Bishnoi, R/o. Village Cherai, P.H. Osian, District Jodhpur.

3. Shri Binja Ram S/o Shri Laxman Ram Ji, b/c Choudhary, R/o- Lordi Panditji, Tehsil Mandor, Distt. Jodhpur.

4. Shri Bhalla Ram S/o Pokar Ram Ji, b/c Choudhary, R/o- Vilage Jajiwal Tehlotan, P.H. P.H. Dangiawas, Tehsil-Mandore, District Jodhpur.

                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Rajesh Panwar with
                                Mr. Prashant Panwar
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. S.R. Paliwal &
                                Mr. Anil Bachhawat




                                         (2 of 6)                [CMA-1254/2005]


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                Judgment

04/02/2021

The case comes up on an application for early hearing of the

matter.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is heard and disposed of finally today itself.

Both the appeals shall stand decided by this common order

as the same arise out of the same accident.

The present appeals have been preferred against the

judgment and award dated 25/02/2005 passed by the Additional

District and Session Judge, Balotra ( M.A.C.T. Cases, Balotra) in

M.A.C. Case No. 57/2003. Vide said judgment and award, injured

Sohan Lal has been awarded a sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs to be paid by

the Insurance Company along with an interest @ 6%.

Brief facts of the case are that on 12/01/2003, Sohan Lal

along with Chandra Ram were going to Desuri by Motorcycle. The

said motorcycle was driven by Chandra Ram and the present

appellant Sohan Lal was a pillion driver on the said motorcycle.

When they reached the road which passes from Desuri to

Charbhuja, a vehicle TATA 407 having registration No. R.J.19 G

5129, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Kishna

Ram, collided with the motorcycle. On account of the injuries

suffered by the appellant in this accident, the appellant became

disabled having permanent disability to the extent of 75%. In the

circumstances, a claim petition was preferred by the appellant

before learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal after framing of the

(3 of 6) [CMA-1254/2005]

issues and evaluating the evidence available on record, awarded a

sum of Rs. 7 lakhs with an interest @ 6% p.a. vide its judgment

and award dated 25/02/2005. The appellant Sohan Lal has

preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the award and

the Insurance Company has also preferred the appeal challenging

the quantum of the award.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Learned counsel for the parties vehemently argued that the

fact of accident, the vehicles involved, the offending vehicle

insured with the Insurance Company and the injuries suffered by

Sohan Lal in the accident are not in dispute in this case. The only

dispute, which is required to be adjudicated in the present case, is

quantum of the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellant Sohan Lal submits that the

appellant has suffered injuries on his backbone (spinal code) and

as per the certificate issued by Medical Board (Ex.16), he is

permanently disabled to the extent of 75% and totally bedridden.

He also submits that in fact, the appellant Sohan Lal is 100%

disabled and without assistance of someone, he is unable to

complete his day to day affairs. Thus, the amount awarded by the

Tribunal in the present case is on very lower side. He further

submits that the condition of injured Sohan Lal continued to be

the same and there is no possibility that the disability suffered by

the appellant will improve in future or he will be in a position to

complete his day to day affairs without any assistance but no

amount towards the future maintenance of injured Sohan Lal and

the assistance to be provided by somebody has been taken into

account while awarding the amount in this case. Learned counsel

(4 of 6) [CMA-1254/2005]

further submits that the amount awarded towards the pain and

suffering to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- is too less in comparison to

the agony suffered by the appellant Sohan Lal in the accident.

Thus, he prays for enhancement of the amount suitably. In

support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Afnees

(Unconsious), he represented through Mother Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd., Vadakara & Ors, 2017(2) ACTC

(SC) 1233 and Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. 2019(2) ACTC (SC) 715.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

submits that although an appeal has also been filed by the

Insurance Company on multiple grounds but he is empathetically

making the submissions with respect to the quantum of

compensation in the present case on account of the fact that the

amount awarded by learned Tribunal is on the higher side and,

therefore, the same is required to be recomputed and reduced

suitably.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has very fairly

submitted that on instructions received from the Insurance

Company, he is ready to make payment of a lump sum amount of

Rs. 4 Lakhs to the injured appellant Sohan Lal, in addition to the

amount which has already been awarded by learned Tribunal vide

its judgment and award dated 25/02/2005.

This proposal of Rs. 4 Lakhs is not agreed to by learned

counsel for the claimant/appellant and, therefore, there is no point

in making the discussions further.

(5 of 6) [CMA-1254/2005]

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and I

have gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as

other relevant record of the case.

It is an admitted position that the injured appellant Sohan

Lal has suffered permanent disability in the accident to the extent

of 75% which is apparent from Medical Board Certificate (Ex.P16)

and he is totally bedridden and cannot complete his day to day

affairs without assistance of any helper.

Learned Tribunal, after having taken into consideration the

fact that Sohan Lal was working in a hotel, adjudged the income

of the appellant as Rs.5,000/- per month and considering his 75%

permanent disability, an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs was awarded. The

fact that Sohan Lal was 22 years of age at the time of accident

and suffered the injury on the backbone (spinal code) causing

thereby 75% permanent disability and virtually bedridden, is

proved beyond doubt in view of the evidence adduced before

learned Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for

the claimant/appellant that he is virtually 100% disabled has

force. The appellant Sohan Lal is unable to do anything except

lying on the bed and thus the disability to the extent of 75% can

be considered for all intents and purposes as 100% in view of the

fact that the appellant Sohan Lal was earning Rs.5,000/- and was

only 22 years of age, the amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees : Seven Lakh Only) appears to be on

much lower side. The same, therefore, is required to be enhanced

by an additional amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees : Seven Lakh

Only) to be paid by the Insurance Company towards the factors of

having suffered disability, pains and suffering and other future

(6 of 6) [CMA-1254/2005]

medical expenses with an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of

filing of the claim petition.

In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant

Sohan Lal is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the

Insurance Company is dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

165-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)