Rajasthan High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd vs Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/O Ishwar Lal on 13 May, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:22309]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4624/2018
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Arihant Tower,
Ashok Marg, Near Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Having Its
Local Office At Office No. 2, Third Floor, C-99, Singhvi Upasana
Tower, Shushash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its
Constituted Attorney.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/o Ishwar Lal, R/o Adarsh Nagar,
Sector No. 1, Bayana, Teh. Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur,
Presently Teacher Govt. Primary School Meghwal Basti
Jhab, Teh. Sanchor, Distt. Jalore.
2. Mohanlal S/o Shobharam, By Caste Gwariya, R/o Indra
Colony, Sanchor, Distt. Jalore (Driver Of Tempo Three
Wheler No. Rj-16-Pa-1498)
3. Bhagirath S/o Asuram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Mooli, Post
Jhav, Teh. Sanchor, Distt. Jalore. (Owner Of Tempo Three
Wheeler No. Rj-16-Pa-1498)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3251/2018
Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/o Ishwar Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Adarsh Nagar, Sector No. 1, Bayana, Tehsil Bayana, Distt.
Bharatpur At Present Teacher Government Secondary School,
Meghwal Basti, Jhaab, Tehsil Saanchor, Distt. Jalore
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mohan Lal S/o Shobha Ram, R/o Indira Colony, Saanchor,
Distt. Jalore (Driver - Tempo Three Wheeler No. Rj-16-Pa-
1498)
2. Bhagirath S/o Aasuram, R/o Mooli, Post Jhaav, Tehsil
Sanchor, Distt. Jalore (Owner - Tempo Three Wheeler No.
Rj-16-Pa-1498)
3. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its
Regional Office At Arihant Tower, Ashok Marg, Near
Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Regional
[2024:RJ-JP:22309] (2 of 5) [CMA-4624/2018]
Manager (Insurer - Tempo Three Wheeler No. Rj-16-Pa-
1498)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. in CMA No.
Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. in CMA No.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. in CMA
Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. in CMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/05/2024
The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and
award dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (ADJ No. 1), Bayana (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim
Case No.101/2011, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the
claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.4,71,362/- along with
interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of re-institution of the
claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant
(for short 'the claimant').
CMA No.4624/2018 has been filed by the HDFC General
Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company')
challenging the judgment & award dated 16.03.2018 passed by
the Tribunal on the various grounds and CMA No.3251/2018 has
been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4624/2018:-
[2024:RJ-JP:22309] (3 of 5) [CMA-4624/2018]
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 3 in favour of the claimant,
wrongly considered that Driver of the Tempo (three wheeler)
possessed valid and effective licence to drive the Light Motor
Vehicle. So, he was not entitled to drive the alleged Tempo
involved in the accident. So, findings of the Tribunal is required to
be modified accordingly. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error
in considering 10% permanent disability because claimant failed
to prove that he sustained 10% loss due to the injuries sustained
by him, which were assessed to be in relation to the whole body.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that
the claimant was 3rd Grade Govt. Teacher in Education
Department. So, he did not suffer any loss of income on account
of permanent disability. Learned counsel for Insurance Company
further submits that the Tribunal has awarded excessive amount
under various head which deserves to be reduced. So, award of
the Tribunal may be modified accordingly.
CMA No.3251/2018- Learned counsel for the claimant submits
that the Tribunal has rightly considered that the Driver-Mohan Lal
was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Tempo
(three wheeler) at the time of accident. So, he was entitled to
drive the vehicle, the unladen weight of which is upto 7500Kg.
Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the Tribunal
has wrongly considered 10% permanent disability whereas the
claimant sustained 43% permanent disability. So, permanent
disability of the claimant should be considered as 43%. Learned
counsel for the claimant further submits that the Tribunal has not
[2024:RJ-JP:22309] (4 of 5) [CMA-4624/2018]
awarded any amount towards future prospects. So, award and
judgment passed by the Tribunal is require to be modified
accordingly.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for
the claimant.
It is an admitted position that the Driver-Mohan Lal was
having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Light Motor
Vehicle. As per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of "Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited" reported in MACD (3)(SC)74, the person
who possesses the licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, can also
drive the vehicle, the unladen weight of which is upto 7500Kg. So,
in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any
error in deciding the Issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company.
The Tribunal has committed an error in considering the loss due to
the injuries sustained by the claimant which were assessed to be
in relation to the whole body because claimant was 3 rd Grade
Government Teacher in Education Department. Thus, on account
of the said percentage of permanent disability, he has not suffered
any loss of income. The claimant is also not entitled to get future
prospects on account of permanent disability. The Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards pain and suffering, nutritional diet
and future treatment. In my considered opinion, when the
claimant took treatment for about 7 months he is entitled to get
Rs. 2,92,992/- under the head of pain and suffering, nutritional
diet as well as future treatment. So, appeal filed by the Insurance
Company as well as claimant deserves to be partly allowed.
[2024:RJ-JP:22309] (5 of 5) [CMA-4624/2018]
So, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company as well as
claimant are partly allowed. The claimant is entitled to get a sum
of Rs. 2,92,992/- under the head of pain and suffering, nutritional
diet as well as future treatment instead of loss of income. The
amount awarded under the other heads shall remain same. The
impugned judgment and award stands modified as indicated
above.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/102-103
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
