Bhag Chand Saini vs Ved Prakash And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3219 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5270/2011

Bhag Chand Saini son of Lt. Sh. Mool Chand Saini, aged about
30 years, resident of Nava Road, Bus Stand, Ward No.11,
Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Ved Prakash son of Rohtas Singh, resident of Village Aliwas,
PS Khol, District Rewari, (Haryana)
2., Jai Prakash son of Sultan Singh, resident of Village Naya
Gaon Daulatpura, PS Sadar District Rewari, (Haryana)
Owner Vehicle No. HR38E-779
3. Iffco Tokiyo Insurance Company Ltd., Katewa Bhawan, In front
of Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

21/04/2022

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-

appellant against the judgment and award dated 05.02.2011

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake,

District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor

Accident Claim Case No.3/2009 whereby an amount of

Rs.1,04,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of

injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant in the accident

occurred on 10.09.2008.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the

evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties,

(2 of 4) [CMA-5270/2011]

decided the claim petition of the claimant-appellant and awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,04,000/- under various heads in

favour of the claimant-appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured

was 30 years of age at the time of accident and he was doing the

job of supervisor and was getting salary of Rs.6000/- per month.

But the Tribunal has not relied this fact and treated him as a daily

wager and determined his income as Rs.3500/- per month.

Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal while passing

the award has not granted any amount under the heads of future

prospects in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi

reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 and under the head of pain and

suffering, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2000/-, which needs

suitable enhancement. Learned counsel therefore prays that

recomputation of the award may be done in the light of judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim

petition of the claimant-appellant has rightly taken into

consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this

case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the

judgment dated 05.02.2011 does not call for any interference by

this Court. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to

controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the

appellant with respect to recomputation of the award.

I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone

through the judgment dated 05.02.2011 as well as the other

relevant documents available on record.

(3 of 4) [CMA-5270/2011]

Admittedly, the injured was 30 years of age at the time of

accident. For proving the income, the appellant had examined the

employer but the employer had not produced any concrete

evidence or accounts in support of his evidence that the injured

was earning Rs.6000/- per month, hence, there is no perversity in

the finding with regard to income of the deceased recorded by the

Tribunal by treating claimant-appellant as a daily wager.

So far as, amount under the heads of future prospects and

pain and suffering are concerned, the award needs interference in

the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Pranay Sethi (supra). The claimant-appellant is entitled to get

future prospects and suitable amount under the head of pain and

suffering.

In view of the material available on record, the appellant-

claimant is entitled to get compensation in the following terms:-

Monthly income Rs. 3500 X 11.24/100 = Rs. 393.4 Annual income Rs. 393.4 x12 = Rs.4720.8 per annum

4720.8 X 17 = Rs.80,253.6 Add 40 per cent towards Rs.80,253.6 + Rs. 32,101.44 future prospects = Rs. 1,12,355.04 Towards Pain and suffering Rs. 28,000/-

Medical Bills                     Rs.24000/-
Hospitalisation Charges           19X600= 11400/-
Total compensation                Rs. 1,75,755.04
awardable
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 1,75,755                  -   Rs.1,04,000   =   Rs.
Tribunal                   71,755.04
Enhanced amount of                Rs. 71,755.04
compensation

In view of the above, the appellant-claimant would be

entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 71,755.04, which shall carry

(4 of 4) [CMA-5270/2011]

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition

till the actual payment is made.

The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.

All pending applications, if any stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

HEENA GANDHI /8

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)