Pradeep vs Pappu Lal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4401 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3/2016

Pradeep son of Banwari Lal Panchal, aged 20 years, resident of
Village Khurad, Distt. Bundi (Raj.)
                                                                ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Pappu Lal son of Sh. Ram Nath, r/o Village Gagos, District
Bundi, (Raj.) (Driver)
2. Gurjeet Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of Village Alfa
Nagar, District Bundi (Owner)
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Regional
Office, A-13, 3rd Floor, Khatipura Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
                              ----Respondents/Opp. Parties No.1 to 3

For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. Ram Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Ritesh Jain



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                                Judgment

01/07/2022

Application for early listing of the case stands allowed for the

reasons stated therein.

With the consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal is

heard on merits.

Instant appeal has been submitted challenging the judgment

and award dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Court of Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to

as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Claim Case No.258/2013 whereby an

amount of Rs.12,19,500/- was awarded as compensation along

with interest @ 7.5 % per annum under various heads on account

of injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant.

(2 of 4) [CMA-3/2016]

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant-

appellant has sustained 90% permanent disability, but without any

basis the Tribunal has assessed the same as 60% only and on the

basis of the same, a meager amount of compensation has been

awarded to the claimant-appellant.

Counsel for the appellant further submits that looking to the

disability certificate Ex.-13, it is clear that after sustaining the

injuries, appellant is facing difficulty is walking without support.

Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the

award needs suitable enhancement.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the

appellant and submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim

petition of the appellant has correctly taken into consideration all

the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of

evidence produced before it.

Thus the judgment passed by the Tribunal does not call for

any interference by this court. However, learned counsel for the

respondent is not in a position to controvert the fact of disability

certificate (Ex.-13) from which it clearly indicates that the

appellant has sustained 90% permanent disability.

I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone

through the material available on record.

Admittedly, the appellant filed the claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on

account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident

occurred on 22.07.2011. His disability certificate Ex.-13 clearly

indicates that the appellant has sustained 90% permanent

disability and as per the endorsement in the bottom of the

(3 of 4) [CMA-3/2016]

certificate, it is clear that the appellant is facing difficulty in

walking without support. This certificate has been issued by the

Medical Board of District Hospital, Bundi consisting of three

doctors and there is no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of

said certificate. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in

assessing disability of the appellant as 60% without any basis

when disability certificate Ex.-13 of the appellant clearly indicates

that he has sustained 90% permanent disability.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lila Ram

Vs. Deshraj & Ors. (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4615/2015)

decided on 09.12.2021 has dealt with the identical situation

where the appellant therein suffered 90% permanent disability

and looking to the aforesaid disability, it was held that the

claimant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3 lacs towards

loss of future amenities in life.

In the instant case also, the appellant has sustained 90%

permanent disability and looking to the fact that without any

basis, the same has been determined as 60% by the Tribunal. In

view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of Lila Ram (supra), appellant is entitled to get

an additional amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs.3,00,000/-.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant-claimant

would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the

head of 'loss of future amenities'. Insurance company is directed

to pay additional amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The

enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of

claim petition till the actual payment is made.

(4 of 4) [CMA-3/2016]

Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

All pending application(s) stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

HEENA GANDHI /18

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)