Rajasthan High Court
Chandra Ram Gurjar vs Ismail And Others on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7650/2011
Chandra Ram Gurjar S/o Udaram, Aged 29 Years, R/o Village
Pratapura, Post Masuda, P.S. and Tehsil Masuda, Distt. Ajmer.
---Claimant-Appellant
Versus
1. Ismail S/o Kalu, R/o Shivpura Ghatta, Police Station Beawar
Sadar, Tehsil Masuda, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.) (Driver of the Truck
Damper No.Rj-36G-0314).
2. Amit Jain S/o Sagar Chand Jain, R/o 2/29, Saket Nagar,
Housing Board, Beawar, (Owner of the Truck Damper No.RJ-36G-
0314).
3. Reiliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Anil Dheeru Bhai
Ambani Group 19 Reliance Centre, Balchand Heera Chand Marg,
Balai State, Mumbai-400038 at present Branch Office at Ajmer
Having its Divisional Office at Nityanand Marg, Queens Road,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Insurer of the Truck Damper No.RJ-36G-
0314).
---Non-Claimants/Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 10.01.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 12.01.2023
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award
dated 23.08.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and
Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.2, Beawar, District
Ajmer (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby a sum of Rs.3,50,700/-
has been awarded as a compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
(2 of 4) [CMA-7650/2011]
Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant (for short 'the
claimant') submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in
awarding lesser compensation. Learned counsel for the claimant
also submitted that as per permanent disability certificate, the
claimant had received 80% permanent disability on account of
amputated injury but the tribunal wrongly considered 40% of
disability. Learned counsel for the claimant also submitted that
claimant was doing milk dairy business and his income was
25000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimant also
submitted that the tribunal has awarded lesser amount towards
the pain and suffering and towards the future medical treatment.
So, order of the tribunal be modified.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and
submitted that the tribunal wrongly calculated the income of the
claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the
respondents also submitted that at that time, prevailing minimum
wages was Rs.2190/- per month. Learned counsel for the
respondents also submitted that there is no proof regarding
income of the claimant. So, minimum wages were to be
considered as income of the claimant. So, appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the material available on record.
It is an admitted position that the tribunal had no material to
consider the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month. So,
in my considered opinion, income of the claimant be considered as
prevailing minimum wages at that time i.e. Rs.2190/- per month.
(3 of 4) [CMA-7650/2011]
Therefore, income of the claimant is assessed as Rs.2190/- per
month i.e. Rs.26280/- per annum. It is also admitted position that
as per the disability certificate (Ex.13), claimant had suffered
permanent physical disability to the extent of 80% but the tribunal
wrongly considered it as a 40%. The said disability certificate has
been issued by a duly constituted Medical Board. The claimant was
examined as AW1 before the tribunal. In his statement, he
categorically stated that at the time of accident he was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month by milk dairy and rachka business. He
further stated that he was having 13 buffalows which were being
cared by him and he was selling their milk. On account of
amputation of his land in the accident, he had to sell his all
buffalows and in the absence of his leg, he can not do agriculture
and dairy business and he has become permanently disabled. The
insurance company did not produce any evidence in rebuttal
thereof. In the absence of any contrary evidence available on
record, in my considered view the injury caused to the claimant
was in relation to his whole body particularly when the leg of the
claimant was amputated and he had become permanently
disabled. Keeping in view the fact that the claimant had suffered
80% permanent disability, therefore, in the light of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an
addition of 40% of the aforesaid income is to be added towards
future prospects of the claimant. Thus, the annual income of the
claimant comes to Rs.29,434/- (21024 + 8410). Keeping in view
the age of the claimant at the time of accident, multiplier of 17
would be applied to work out the compensation. In this way, the
(4 of 4) [CMA-7650/2011]
amount of compensation comes to 5,00,378/- (29434 x 17). The
claimant, in addition to the above, is liable to be granted
Rs.50,000/- towards the pain and sufferings instead of Rs.6,000/-
as awarded by the tribunal and Rs.50,000/- towards past and
future medical treatment. Thus, total amount of compensation
receivable by the claimant comes to Rs.6,00,378/- (500378 +
50000 + 50000).
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award
dated 23.08.2011 is modified to the extent that the amount of
compensation receivable by the claimant is Rs.6,00,378/- instead
of Rs.3,50,700/- as awarded by the tribunal. Remaining terms and
conditions of the award shall be the same.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin/100
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
