Rajasthan High Court
Sunil vs Rajendra Kumar And Others on 12 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:12159]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1399/2016
National Insurance company Ltd,. Head Office Middleton Street,
Kolkatta, Branch Office at Jatiya Bazar, sikar, (Raj.)
(Insurance Company of Vehicle Mini Truck No. RJ 13-G-8530)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sunil S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged about 11 years, R/o Bhawani
Nagar, Fatehpur Road, Sikar, Minor through natural guardian
Father Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Bhagwanaram, R/o Bhawani Nagar,
Fatehpur Road, Sikar, Tehsil & District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Rampratap, R/o Matoriya Motors
Ltd,. Jaipur Road, Sikar, Tehsil & District Sikar.
(Driver of Vehicle Mini Truck No. RJ 13-G-8530)
3. M/s Matoriya Motors Pvt, Ltd.., Jaipur Road, Sikar through
Manager Subodh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Banshidhar Sharma,
R/o Laxmangarh, District Sikar.
(Registered owner of Vehicle Mini Truck No. RJ 13-G-8530)
4. Vivek Choudhary S/o Shri Narendra Choudhary, R/o
Hanumangarh, at present Director, M/s Matoriya Motors Pvt,
Ltd.., Jaipur Road, Sikar.
(Owner of Vehicle Mini Truck No. RJ 13-G-8530)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 961/2016
Sunil S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged about 23 years, R/o Bhawani
Nagar, Fatehpur Road, Sikar, Tehsil & District Sikar (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Rampratap, R/o Matoriya Motors
Ltd,. Jaipur Road, Sikar(Driver)
2. M/s Matoriya Motors Pvt, Ltd.., Jaipur Road, Sikar through
Manager Subodh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Banshidhar Sharma,
R/o Laxmangarh, District Sikar. ( owner)
3. Vivek Choudhary S/o Shri Narendra Choudhary, R/o
Hanumangarh, at present Director, M/s Matoriya Motors Pvt,
Ltd.., Jaipur Road, Sikar. (Owner)
4. National Insurance company Ltd,. Regional Office, Near Jyoti
[2024:RJ-JP:12159] (2 of 5) [CMA-1399/2016]
Nagar Turn Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.) through Regional
Manager.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.P Mathur, Adv for Insurance
Company
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv. with
Mr. Kapil Sharma, Adv. for claimant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 12/03/2024
The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and
award dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sikar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case
No.383/2015 titled as "Sunil Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.", whereby
the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a
sum of Rs.4,85,987/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 06.01.2004 as
compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1-Sunil (for
short' the claimant').
CMA No.1399/2016 has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the judgment & award passed by the
Tribunal on the various grounds, whereas CMA No.961/2016 has
been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1399/2016:- Learned
counsel for the Insurance Company submits that earlier the
Tribunal had decided the claim petition vide judgment dated
24.04.2007. The said judgment was challenged before this Court
[2024:RJ-JP:12159] (3 of 5) [CMA-1399/2016]
vide its order dated 16.08.2012 and this Court in S.B. Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.3200/2007 remanded the matter to the
Tribunal to decide the Issue No.2 regarding quantum of
compensation afresh. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
also submits that the Tribunal after remanding the matter,
awarded Rs.4,85,987/- which is on higher side because claimant
was 10 years' boy and he was not earning at that time. The
Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the claimant. So,
Judgment and Award of the Tribunal be set aside.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 961/2016:- Learned
counsel for the claimant submits that due to accident, claimant
suffered 70% disability but the Tribunal awarded very meager
amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimant also
submits that income of the claimant be considered on the basis of
the minimum wages prevalent at that time. The Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards future prospects. The Tribunal has
also awarded very meager amount of Rs.4,000/- under the head
of transportation and awarded very meager amount of Rs.4,000/-
only regarding loss of education. So, the judgment of the Tribunal
be modified accordingly.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for
the claimant.
It is an admitted position that while deciding the claim
petition, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,50,000/- viz-a-viz 70%
permanent disability of the claimant but in my considered opinion,
[2024:RJ-JP:12159] (4 of 5) [CMA-1399/2016]
the Tribunal had awarded very meager amount of Rs.2,500/-
towards the attendant. As per the record, claimant was operated
thrice and his leg from thigh was amputated. It is an also
admitted position that the claimant was a minor child of 10 years
of age at the time of accident, his left leg from thigh was
amputated, he was operated thrice and he remained admitted in
the hospital for number of days. Due to the said 70% disability
(amputated of left leg from thigh), he would not be able to
discharge his daily routine works independently, for which, he will
have to remain dependent on others and would need an attendant
for his remaining part of life, in my considered opinion, the
amount of Rs.25,00/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards
attendant is abysmally low, whereas the Tribunal should have
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head. The Tribunal has also
awarded a very meager amount of Rs.4,000/- under the head of
loss of education, whereas taking into consideration the fact that
entire career of the claimant has been put at stake, it should be
Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded very meager amount of
Rs.4,000/- under the head of transportation, whereas taking into
consideration the fact that the claimant had to go to hospital for
three operations and subsequent treatment time and again, it
should be Rs.10,000/-. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is
modified to the extent as under:-
In the light of the judgment Rs.4,50,000/-
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Master Mallikarjun
Vs. Divisional Manager National
Insurance Company, for 70%
permanent disability sustained
[2024:RJ-JP:12159] (5 of 5) [CMA-1399/2016]
by the claimant
For physical and mental agony Rs.6,000/-
For amputation of left leg from Rs.1,00,000/-
thigh and hospitalization
For Loss of Education Rs.25,000/-
Medical Bills as awarded by the Rs.19,487/-
Tribunal
Transportation Rs.10,000/-
Total
Rs.6,10,487/-
Less amount awarded by the
Tribunal Rs.4,85,987/-
Enhanced Amount of
compensation Rs.6,10,487 - Rs.4,85,987/- =
Rs.1,24,500/-
The claimant is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.1,24,500/-
as compensation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
enhanced amount of Rs.1,24,500/- (Rs.6,10,487 - Rs.4,85,987/-)
with the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the
claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the same. The enhanced
amount shall carry @ 7% interest per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.
In the result, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed, whereas, appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed.
Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain
unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /201-202
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
