Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Lal vs Mukesh Bhai And Ors. ... on 25 July, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:30686]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1832/2015
Laxman Lal S/o Shri Nathu Bhai Pargi, Profession Labour Work
and Agriculturist, aged about 33 years, R/o Kochari Tehsil
Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant/Claimant
Versus
1. Mukesh Bhai S/o Shri Punja Bhai Rawal, R/o Tajpur Kampa
Talod District Sabarkhantha, Gujarat.
(Driver of Offending Vehicle No.GJ-18/A.U.-7643)
2. Babu Bhat S/o Shri Hargovind Das Patel, R/o Ridrol Taluka
Mansa, District Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat, also R/o 501,
Shakun Platinum in front of Vande Mataram, New AGC
Road, Gota, Ahemadabad.
(Owner of the offending vehicle)
3. Cholamandalam Genearal Insurance Company Ltd. through
Manager, Registered Head Office at Deru House, Second
Floor, 234 NCC Bose Road, Chennai. (Insurer)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia assisted by Ms.
Nidhi Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Singhvi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 25/07/2024
1. Heard. Perused the material available on record.
2. By way of the instant misc. appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988'), the appellant/claimant has sought enhancement of the cmopensation and has sought modification of the judgment & award dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned MACT, Dungarpur in MACT Case No.155/2012 (Laxman Lal Vs. Mukesh Bhai & Ors.) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the claimant by (Downloaded on 31/07/2024 at 08:33:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:30686] (2 of 6) [CMA-1832/2015] awarding an amount to the tune of Rs.1,07,662/- @ 9% p.a. in his favour.
3. A claim petition was preferred by the claimant/appellant arising out of the incident which took place on 29.04.2011 on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 herein resulting into a fracture in spine D5 of his spinal cord. In the said accident, one person namely Dala succumbed to death.
4. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein chose not to file reply and their evidence was closed. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company in its reply stated that the injured and the other persons were traveling as passengers in the truck and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the persons who were traveling in the truck by giving fair. Thus, it is clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance company by the owner of the offending vehicle.
5. As per pleadings, learned Tribunal framed following issues:-
"(Consolidated Issues) 1- आया अप्रार्थी मुकेश भाई वाहन चालक ने दिनां क 29.04.2011 वक्त दिन में 1.30 पी.एम. के लगभग मौजा रखियाल दे हगाम रोड पर चाम्पलपुर (गुजरात) मुख्य मार्ग पर वाहन ट्र क नं० जी.जे.-18/ए.यू . -7643 को तेजगति एवं लापरवाही से चलाकर पलटी खिला दी, जिस कारण प्र० सं० 05/12 में दला की मृत्यु कारित हुई व प्र० सं० 155/12 में आहत लक्ष्मण के शरीर पर गंभीर प्रकृति की उपहतियाँ कारित हुई ?
- प्रार्थीगण-
2- आया एम.ए.सी.टी. प्र० सं० 05/2012 एवं प्र० सं० 155/2012 के अप्रार्थीगण सं० 1, 2 व 3 द्वारा अपने लिखित अभिकथनो की प्रारम्भिक आपत्तियो एवं विशेष कथनो के मध्यनजर अपने दायित्व से मुक्त हो सकते है नही तो इसका प्रभाव क्या होगा ?
-अप्रार्थीगण-
3- अनुतोष ।"
6. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded the claimant/appellant-Laxman Lal a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of 'Grievous Injuries', Rs.25,000/- under the head 'Pain and (Downloaded on 31/07/2024 at 08:33:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:30686] (3 of 6) [CMA-1832/2015] Suffering' and Rs.77,662 for his treatment; Rs.1,07,662/- (total amount awarded by Tribunal) and being aggrieved of the same, the claimant/appellant preferred the instant misc. appeal and thus, being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant/claimant has preferred the present misc. appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in awarding meagre compensation and therefore, the award deserves to be modified and the compensation deserves to be enhanced. In this regard he submits that the learned Tribunal, despite knowing that the insurance company has charged additional premium and is liable to pay the compensation, exonerated the insurance company from its liability. He further submits that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged 30 years and the injuries sustained by him in that accident is serious in nature which resulted into 80% permanent disability and the nature of job in which the claimant was engaged, the said disability resulted into 100% loss of income.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that spine of claimant has fractured and he was treated in various hospitals in the State of Gujarat and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal was that the claimant did not produce any document on record which demonstrates that he suffered any disability whereas, the claimant produced various certified copies of permanent disability issued by the competent medical officers, which is sufficient to show that he suffered permanent disability. He also submits that the claimant/appellant was also not awarded (Downloaded on 31/07/2024 at 08:33:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:30686] (4 of 6) [CMA-1832/2015] under the head 'Future Prospects' as the appellant was 30 years of age at the time of incident and he has become virtually incapable of doing anything on account of the injuries cause to him.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award and the same does not call for any interference.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.
11. From the perusal of the award dated 03.06.2015, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of 'Grievous Injuries', Rs.25,000/- under the head 'Pain and Suffering' and Rs.77,662 for treatment to the claimant/appellant; Rs.1,07,662/- (total amount). It is also seen from the award that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head future prospects and under the head disability as he suffered 80% disability and nor the multiplier of 17 has been applied looking to the age of the injured.
12. Thus, looking to the factual matrix of the case and applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : 2017 16 SCC 680, the instant misc. appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the learned MACT, Dungarpur in MACT Case No.155/2012 (Laxman Lal Vs. Mukesh Bhai & Ors.), stands modified. Following computation is approved for calculating (Downloaded on 31/07/2024 at 08:33:04 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:30686] (5 of 6) [CMA-1832/2015] the enhanced compensation awardable to the appellant/claimant- Laxman Lal:-
Annual Income of the injured aged 30 years at the time of incident Rs.3,510/- (per month).
Annual Salary (Rs.3,510/- x 12 = Rs.42,120/-. Add-Future Prospectus @ 40% of
Rs.42,120/-(total income) i.e. Rs.42,120/- x 40% = Rs.16,848/- + Rs.42,120/- = Rs.58,968/-
Multiplier @ 17 (Rs.58,968/- x 17) = Rs.10,02,456/- Rs.10,02,456/-
Add-80% Disability due to spine injury. Rs.11,77,456/-
Rs.25,000/- (for 50% disability) + Rs.6,000/-(for each percent disability) x 25 (other percent disability) = Rs.1,75,000/-.
Rs.10,02,456/- + Rs.1,75,000/- = Rs.11,77,456/- GRAND TOTAL Rs.11,77,456/- Less-Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,07,662/- Enhanced Amount (round figure) Rs.10,69,794/-
13. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,69,794/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. to the claimant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this award, failing the claimant shall be entitled to receive interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation.
14. The amount, if any, already paid by the respondent- Insurance Company, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court.
15. The insurance company shall pay the enhanced compensation to the appellant and thereafter, shall recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle.
16. The misc. appeal stands partly allowed in the above terms. (Downloaded on 31/07/2024 at 08:33:04 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:30686] (6 of 6) [CMA-1832/2015]
17. No order as to costs.
18. Record be returned to the Tribunal forthwith.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 61-/Devesh Thanvi/-
(Downloaded on 31/07/2024 at 08:33:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)