Rajasthan High Court
Kuldeep vs Ram Singh Lodha And Others on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1478/2013
Kuldeep son of Sri Ram kailash, aged 21 years, resident of
village Kaithuda, Tehsil and District Bundi (Raj.)
---Claimant-Appellant
Versus
1. Ram Singh Lodha son of Shri Surajmal, resident of village
Dagariya, Post Cheta, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
(Driver)
2. Surajmal Lodha son of Shri Madhura Lal, resident of village
Dagariya, Post Cheta, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi
(Owner)
3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office,
Near Jyoti Nagar Turn, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur through
Regional Manager
---Non-Claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ribhu Datt, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
06/07/2022
Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant
against the impugned judgment and award dated 04.01.2013
passed by the Court- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi (Raj.)
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in MAC case No.362/2010 by
which an award of Rs.97,080/- has been passed along with
interest @ 6% per annum.
Counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that while
assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has not taken
into consideration disability certificate (Ex.12) of the claimant-
appellant from which it clearly indicates that there is 30%
(2 of 3) [CMA-1478/2013]
restriction in the movement of elbow of the appellant and the
Tribunal has assessed the compensation simply by treating
permanent disability as 15%. Counsel further submits that no
multiplier has been applied for calculating the loss of income, so
under these facts and circumstances of the case, the amount
awarded by the Tribunal needs suitable enhancements.
Per contra, learned counsel opposed the arguments raised by
the counsel for the appellant-claimant and submits that the
Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellant-
claimant, has correctly taken into consideration all the factors
while calculating the award on the anvil of evidence produced
before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 04.01.2013 passed
by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
judgment and award dated 04.01.2013.
In the present case, it is admitted fact that the claimant-
appellant has suffered fractures, which have resulted into 15%
permanent disability on account of which there is 30% restrictions
in the movement of elbow of the claimant-appellant. In such
circumstances, this Court considers that an amount of Rs.
40,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the
Tribunal, is enhanced in favour of the claimant-appellant along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim
petition.
In view of the above, the present is disposed of with the
direction to the respondent-Insurance Company to pay Rs.
40,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the
Tribunal to the claimant-appellant vide judgment and award dated
(3 of 3) [CMA-1478/2013]
04.01.2013 towards full and final settlement within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
It is made clear that the direction issued by the Tribunal to
the respondents with regard to making payment amount of
compensation amount to the claimant-appellant and also recovery
of the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle will remain
unchanged.
However, The respondent-Insurance Company would be at
liberty to recover the enhanced amount from the driver and owner
of the vehicle.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
PRAVESH/62
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
